DEMOGRAPHIC

AND

HEALTH

SURVEYS

DHS WORKING PAPERS

2018 No. 142

Lindsay Mallick

Trinadh Dontamsetti

Thomas Pullum

Julia Fleuret

May 2018

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for 

International Development.

Using the Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys from 

2011 and 2016 to Assess Changes in Saving Mothers, Giving 

Life Intervention Districts

DHS Working Paper No. 142

Using the Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys from 

2011 and 2016 to Assess Changes in Saving Mothers, Giving 

Life Intervention Districts

Lindsay Mallick1,2

Trinadh Dontamsetti1,3

Thomas Pullum1,3

Julia Fleuret1,3

ICF

Rockville, Maryland, USA

May 2018

1 The DHS Program

2 Avenir Health

3

ICF

Corresponding author: Lindsay Mallick, International Health and Development, ICF, 530 Gaither Road, 

Suite 500, Rockville, MD 20850, USA; phone: 301-572-0950; fax: 301-572-0999; email: 

lindsay.mallick@icf.com
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Robert Cohen, Marc Cunningham, and Mona Steffen for 

sharing guidance and insight around the Saving Mothers, Giving Life program, Tom Fish for map design, 

and the Uganda Bureau of Statistics staff and fieldworkers who collected the data that made this analysis 

possible 

Editor: Bryant Robey

Document Production: Joan Wardell

The DHS Working Papers series is a prepublication series of papers reporting on research in progress that 

is based on Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data. This research is carried out with support provided 

by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through The DHS Program (#AIDOAA-C-13-00095). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views 

of USAID or the United States Government.

The DHS Program assists countries worldwide in the collection and use of data to monitor and evaluate 

population, health, and nutrition programs. Additional information about The DHS Program can be obtained 

from ICF, 530 Gaither Road, Suite 500, Rockville, MD 20850 USA; telephone: +1 301-572-0200, fax: 

+1 301-572-0999, email: info@DHSprogram.com, internet: www.DHSprogram.com.

Recommended citation:

Mallick, Lindsay, Trinadh Dontamsetti, Thomas Pullum, Julia Fleuret. 2018. Using the Uganda 

Demographic and Health Surveys from 2011 and 2016 to Assess Changes in Saving Mothers, Giving Life

Intervention Districts. DHS Working Paper No. 142. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF.
iii

CONTENTS

TABLES........................................................................................................................................................ v

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... vii

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ xi

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1

2 DATA AND METHODS ................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Data..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 8

3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 9

4 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................. 13

5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 17

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 19

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................. 23

v

TABLES

Table 1 Districts included in each control area ................................................................... 7

Table 2 Background characteristics of women and births in the intervention and 

control groups ........................................................................................................ 7

Table 3 Estimates and percentage difference in the estimates in the SMGL 

intervention areas and control areas, Uganda DHS 2011 and 2016 ................... 10

Table 4 The difference-in-differences between SMGL intervention areas and 

control areas, Uganda DHS 2011 and 2016 with unadjusted (UA) and 

adjusted (A) tests of significance ......................................................................... 10

Appendix Table 1 Estimates, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI), and percentage difference 

in the estimates in SMGL intervention area and control areas, Uganda 

DHS 2011 and 2016 ............................................................................................ 23

Appendix Table 2 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of attending four or more antenatal 

care visits during the last pregnancy in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention 

and control areas, Uganda................................................................................... 24

Appendix Table 3 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of receiving urine testing in an 

antenatal care visit during the last pregnancy in the last 3 years in SMGL 

intervention and control areas, Uganda............................................................... 24

Appendix Table 4 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of receiving blood pressure 

measurement in an antenatal care visit during the last pregnancy in 

the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, Uganda ...................... 25

Appendix Table 5 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of the mother's receipt of postnatal 

care in 2 days after delivery of the most recent child born in the 

last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, Uganda ............................ 25

Appendix Table 6 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of the baby's receipt of postnatal 

care in two days after delivery for the most recent child born in the 

last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, Uganda ............................ 26

Appendix Table 7 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of delivery in a health facility among 

children born in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, 

Uganda................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix Table 8 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of having a skilled attendant at birth, 

among children born in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control 

areas, Uganda...................................................................................................... 27

Appendix Table 9 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of delivery by cesarean section, 

among children born in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control 

areas, Uganda...................................................................................................... 27

vii

FIGURES

Figure 1 Trends in pregnancy-related mortality ratio, Uganda 2000-01 to 2011 ................. 1

Figure 2 Map of SMGL Phase 1 districts (treatment area) and control area 1 .................... 6

Figure 3 Map of SMGL Phase 1 districts (treatment area) and control area 2 .................... 6

Figure 4 Map of SMGL Phase 1 districts (treatment area) and control area 3 .................... 6

Figure 5 Trends in MCH indicators, 2006-2016 ................................................................. 12

ix

ABSTRACT

Launched in 2012 in Uganda and Zambia, the Saving Mothers, Giving Life (SMGL) initiative aimed to 

improve access to and use of maternal and newborn health care as well as the quality of maternal and 

newborn health care services. This study compared the change in coverage of nine related maternal and 

child health (MCH) indicators between districts included in the SMGL initiative with the change in selected

control areas using data from two Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted in Uganda. The most 

recent DHS surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2016, one immediately preceding the initiative and another 

in the final year of the initiative. We employed a difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the 

significance of the difference in the change between treatment and control areas.

The results revealed that while respondents and their children in both the SMGL and control areas 

demonstrated significant improvements in MCH indicators between 2011 and 2016, the gains were largely 

not significantly different between the treatment and control areas, with the exception of two indicators: 

blood pressure measurement among women with ANC and births delivered by cesarean section. The lack 

of significant difference-in-differences may be due to the small sample sizes, and results should be 

interpreted with caution.

KEY WORDS: Uganda, Saving Mothers, Giving Life, SMGL, maternal and child health

xi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A adjusted

AIDS acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

ANC antenatal care

BP blood pressure

CDC United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

GPS global positioning system

HIV human immunodeficiency virus

ICF ICF (originally, Inner City Fund)

IPTp intermittent preventative treatment

KOICA Korean International Cooperation Agency

MANIFEST Maternal and Neonatal Implementation for Equitable Systems

MCH maternal and child health

MOH ministry of health

PEPFAR United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

PNC postnatal care

SBA skilled birth attendant

SMGL Saving Mothers, Giving Life

UA unadjusted

UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics

UDHS Uganda Demographic and Health Survey

UNMHCP Uganda National Minimum Health Care Package

UPHC Uganda Population and Housing Census

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WHO World Health Organization

ZamCAT Zambia Chlorhexidine Application Trial

1

1 INTRODUCTION

The health of mothers and babies is a priority for the Government of Uganda. Maternal and newborn health 

care services have been central pillars in the Uganda National Minimum Health Care Package (UNMHCP) 

since its inception in 1999 (Wright 2015). The specific objectives are to reduce morbidity and mortality 

related to sexual and reproductive health and rights and to improve newborn health and survival (Ministry 

of Health 2010a). Although women are often expected to bring their own clean delivery kits or sterile 

equipment when attending facilities to deliver their children, all services included in the UNMHCP are 

provided without user fees. However, challenges in access to services, uptake of their use, and quality of 

care have persisted, particularly for emergency obstetric care seeking and provision (Mbonye et al. 2007). 

Thus in 2007 the Government of Uganda launched a strategy specifically focused on reducing maternal and 

neonatal morbidity and mortality (Ministry of Health 2007).

Some indicators of maternal and child health outcomes and health service delivery improved between 

surveys in 2000-01 and 2011. The five-year infant mortality rate decreased from 88 to 54 deaths per 1,000 

live births, and the proportion of women receiving skilled assistance during delivery during the five

preceding years increased from 37% to 58% (UBOS and ICF International 2012; UBOS and ORC Macro 

2001). During the same period the neonatal mortality rate (deaths during the first month of age per 1,000 

live births) decreased from 33 to 27. Other indicators still have far to go. According to the 2011 Uganda 

Demographic and Health survey (UDHS), only about one in every five pregnant women (22%) had a urine 

sample taken, despite national clinical guidelines requiring urine testing for all women at the first antenatal 

care visit (Ministry of Health 2010b). In 2011, only a third of women (33%) and 11% of newborns received 

a postnatal checkup in the first two days after birth; nearly two-thirds (65%) of all Ugandan women reported

at least one problem accessing health care (UBOS and ICF International 2012).

Figure 1 Trends in pregnancy-related mortality ratio, Uganda 2000-01 to 2011

One critical indicator, pregnancy-related mortality, showed no significant change between 2001-01 and 

2011, as Figure 1 shows. Pregnancy-related mortality includes deaths due to incidental causes and is 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2000-01 2006 2011

Pregnancy-related deaths 

per 100,000 births

Note: Pregnancy-related mortality ratio for the seven years preceding the survey expressed per 100,000 

births. Pregnancy-related deaths are deaths during pregnancy, delivery, and in the two months following 

delivery or end of a pregnancy, including deaths due to accidents or violence.
2

therefore slightly larger than maternal mortality; both are comparatively rare events and difficult to measure 

with precision, particularly in the absence of reliable national registration of deaths and determination of 

cause of death. In addition, there are differences between direct causes of maternal death (puerperal sepsis, 

hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, and abortion complications) and indirect causes (anemia, diabetes, 

HIV, etc.), in their implications for the diagnostic and treatment capacities of health systems (WHO 2012).

Nevertheless, important work has been done to identify the causes of maternal mortality in Uganda. A 

review of maternal deaths at a regional referral hospital in Western Uganda found that most deaths were 

due to direct causes. Among women who died of any maternal cause, women who were HIV-positive or 

lived in rural areas or did not attend antenatal care or delayed seeking care or were referred from other 

facilities were more likely to die (Ngonzi et al. 2016). When facilities have limited staff/resources, women

in labor should be triaged so that women presenting with complications are attended to early enough to 

avert bad outcomes. Setting up triage systems in Uganda, however, even at the national referral hospital in

Kampala, is no simple matter (Forshaw et al. 2016). Absenteeism, particularly among doctors, means that 

women in labor may find no assistance when they arrive at a facility. This is particularly problematic for 

women with complications who need intensive medical support (Ackers, Ioannou, and Ackers-Johnson 

2016). Inadequate provision of safe obstetric anesthetic is a risk factor for maternal death, but few hospitals 

in Uganda meet all requirements for safe anesthesia (Epiu et al. 2017). Women who quickly return home 

after birth or who deliver at home may not recognize when postpartum bleeding qualifies as hemorrhage 

and therefore may not seek care in time (Ononge, Okello, and Mirembe 2016).

Launched in 2012 in Uganda and Zambia by the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Saving 

Mothers, Giving Life (SMGL) initiative is a five-year public-private partnership led by the United States 

Agency for International Development (USAID). The partners include the United States Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 

(PEPFAR), Merck for Mothers, and Project CURE, along with implementing agencies in each country. 

SMGL aims to decrease maternal mortality by 50% during the most dangerous time for women and babies–

labor, delivery, and the first 48 hours postpartum–by addressing the “three delays” associated with maternal 

and newborn deaths. The “three delays” are: delays in seeking appropriate care; delays in reaching care in 

a timely manner; and delays in receiving high-quality care at a health facility (SMGL 2014, 2017). SMGL 

seeks to ensure that all women have access to safe delivery services and, in the event of an obstetric 

complication, obtain comprehensive emergency services within two hours of onset. 

To address the three delays, the SMGL initiative planned and deployed dozens of activities that were 

designed to be evidence-based, low-cost interventions. These activities are divided into four dimensions: 

demand; access; quality; and health system strengthening, as described in Kruk et al (2013) in an initial 

evaluation of the initiative. To help generate demand for giving birth in a health facility, SMGL ran mass 

media campaigns and trained village health teams to promote facility delivery and birth preparedness; 

health workers were also expected to distribute hygienic birth supplies, or “Mama Kits”. To improve access 

to care, SMGL built new and refurbished existing facilities, improved maternity wards, renovated “mothers’ 

shelters” intended to reduce travel time to care for expecting mothers, and purchased vehicles that could 

serve as ambulances. Through hiring and training skilled providers s, providing supervision, and stocking 

facilities with essential medicines, SMGL worked to improve quality of care in health services. 

Strengthening health systems included upgrading facilities to basic or comprehensive emergency obstetric 
3

and neonatal care status, improving maternity wards, labs, and pharmacy capacities, and facilitating the use 

of electronic health information systems.

In Uganda, Phase 1 of the initiative was launched in four districts in 2012, with Phase 2 commencing in 

another four districts in 2014. From its inception, SMGL was designed to be a district-level program 

primarily executed by the Uganda and Zambia governments, building on the existing public and private 

healthcare systems with expert guidance from USAID and other aid partners (SMGL 2014).

The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program has collected nationally representative data in 

Uganda every five years since 1988. The DHS surveys cover many topics relevant to women’s health status 

and health care, including coverage of key indicators of reproductive and maternal and child health (MCH). 

The two most recent Uganda DHS surveys were conducted in 2011, before the launch of the SMGL 

initiative, and in 2016, the final year of the SMGL initiative. Although Uganda’s DHS surveys are not 

designed to be representative at the district level, women from almost every district were sampled in each 

survey. The purpose of this study is to compare the change in coverage of related MCH indicators between 

districts included in the SMGL initiative with the corresponding change in selected control districts, using 

data from respondents in the two most recent UDHS surveys.

5

2 DATA AND METHODS

2.1 Data

This analysis used data from two nationally representative household-based Uganda Demographic and 

Health Surveys (UDHS) in 2011 and 2016. These surveys were implemented by the Uganda Bureau of 

Statistics (UBOS) in collaboration with the Uganda Ministry of Health (MOH) (UBOS and ICF 2018; 

UBOS and ICF International 2012). The sample of households for each survey was drawn from a two-stage 

sample design in order to ensure that the sample is representative at the national and regional levels (10 

regions in 2011 and 15 in 2016), as well as by urban and rural residence. The first stage was selection of 

clusters. For the 2011 UDHS, the clusters were selected from a list of clusters sampled by the 2009-10 

Uganda National Household Survey. For the 2016 UDHS, the sampling frame was based on the 2014 

Uganda Population and Housing Census (UPHC); three regions were stratified by island and non-island 

areas, and then by urban and rural areas. The clusters were selected with a probability proportional to size 

within each stratum. In the second stage, households were systemically selected from a listing of all 

households in each cluster. Interviewers collected data from respondents in the selected households between 

May and December 2011 for the 2011 UDHS and between June and December 2016 for the 2016 UDHS.

Respondents included women age 15-49 who provided information about their health status and healthrelated behaviors and attitudes. Women who had a live birth in the five years preceding the survey provided 

additional data about the care they received during and after pregnancy and childbirth, as well as about the 

health and care of their children. This study analyzed data from women who reported having a live birth in 

the three years preceding each survey. We chose to limit our sample to this period in order to evaluate only 

women who had been exposed to the SMGL initiative for at least a year and a half at the time of the index 

birth. This time period coincides with the end of the pilot period of SMGL, which was rolled out between 

the launch in 2012 through May 2013 (Kruk et al. 2013). The data for this study comprised 4,042 women 

and their 4,905 live births in 2011, and 7,903 women and 9,228 live births in 2016.

Phase 1 of SMGL was initiated in four contiguous districts in western Uganda: Kabarole, Kamwenge, 

Kibaale, and Kyenjojo. Figure 1 depicts the location of the intervention areas and control areas. We selected 

DHS clusters that were located within these districts for inclusion in the treatment area. Figure 1 shows the 

location of the intervention areas and the control areas. We constructed three different control areas against 

which to compare the treatment area.

Table 1 also specifies the districts included in each control area. While the Government of Uganda continues 

to redraw its district and regional boundaries, this did not affect the intervention districts between the two 

most recent DHS surveys, although the district names included in the control areas changed. We structured 

the control areas such that geographical boundaries of all the control areas remained consistent between the 

surveys.
6

Figure 2 Map of SMGL Phase 1 districts 

(treatment area) and control area 1

Figure 4 Map of SMGL Phase 1 districts 

(treatment area) and control area 3

Figure 3 Map of SMGL Phase 1 districts 

(treatment area) and control area 2
7

Table 1 Districts included in each control area

Treatment/

Control area Districts Reason for selection 

Districts affected by redistricting between 

2011 and 2016

Treatment

(SMGL Phase 1)

Kabarole, Kamwenge, 

Kibaale, Kyenjojo Treatment area

Redistricting did not occur between the 2011 

and 2016 surveys

Control 1

Hoima, Kyankwanzi, 

Kiboga, Mubende, 

Kyegegwa, Kiruhura, 

Ibanda, Rubirizi

All districts contiguous to the 

treatment area, except three 

districts with a similar 

intervention Kiboga divided into Kiboga and Kyankwanzi 

Control 2

Control 1 plus 

Bundibugyo, Kasese and 

Ntoroko

All districts contiguous to the 

treatment area

Bundibugyo divided into Ntoroko and 

Bundibugyo

Control 3

All districts outside of 

SMGL Phase 1 districts1

For comparison of treatment 

area against the rest of the 

country

Nationally, 10 regions were reconfigured into 15 

regions; however, the total number of districts 

remained the same (112)

1Excludes clusters with missing GPS data

The first control area comprised districts contiguous to the intervention area, except three districts that

received a similar large-scale maternal health program conducted by the Korean International Cooperation 

Agency (KOICA). The second control area contained districts in the first control area, plus the three districts 

with the KOICA intervention. We selected the first two control areas on the basis that because these areas 

in proximity to each other they also possess similar characteristics–e.g., ethnicity, religion, climate–and 

were exposed to similar macro-level changes over time, such as economic climate, weather patterns, refugee 

influx, or political atmosphere. The final control area was used to compare the intervention districts with

the rest of the country. In 2011, four clusters without global positioning system (GPS) data were included 

only in the final control area. Table 2 presents descriptive characteristics and the numbers of women and 

live births in each area that are included in the analysis.

Table 2 Background characteristics of women and births in the intervention and control groups

Percent of women Number of:

Rural

Lowest 

wealth 

quintile

No 

education 

Under 20 

years old 

at most 

recent 

birth

Not 

currently 

married

Women age 

15-49 with 

a birth in the 

preceding 3 

years 

Children 

born in the 

preceding 3 

years

2011

SMGL 

Intervention 82.5 10.8 11.6 10.1 17.3 278 339

Control 1 95.6 14.5 23.7 12.9 15.4 266 333

Control 2 89.7 11.0 21.6 13.7 15.3 372 457

Control 3 85.5 22.9 13.6 15.3 14.2 3,764 4,566

2016

SMGL 

Intervention 87.0 11.8 15.1 19.4 22.4 463 540

Control 1 85.7 9.5 11.8 16.1 18.7 575 680

Control 2 83.1 7.1 10.8 17.2 17.5 832 973

Control 3 77.5 22.8 9.5 17.1 16.7 7,441 8,688
8

2.2 Methods

The SMGL initiative focused on improving access to maternal and newborn health care and the quality of 

maternal and newborn health care services. To assess the results of this initiative, this analysis examined

nine potentially related outcomes for women with a birth in the three years preceding the survey, and also 

for births occurring in the three years preceding the survey. For women, these outcomes included: four or 

more (4+) antenatal care (ANC) visits; two components of ANC including urine sample taken and blood 

pressure (BP) measured; postnatal care (PNC) by a skilled provider for the mother; and PNC by a skilled 

provider for the baby. For births in the preceding three years, we examined facility delivery, delivery with 

a skilled birth attendant (SBA), and Cesarean section (C-section delivery).

This analysis relied on cross-sectional data and employed a difference-in-differences analysis, a type of 

quasi-experimental design that can serve as a substitute for experimental design in the absence of randomly 

assigned treatment and control areas (Gertler 2011). This type of analysis, though intended for use with 

longitudinal data, can be applied with repeated cross-sectional data (Basu 1980) and provides an estimate 

of the causal relationship between the treatment (SMGL interventions) and selected outcomes. Our analysis 

compared the change in MCH care indicators (above) over time in the intervention and control areas in 

order to assess whether the districts included in the SMGL initiative improved more than districts that were 

not included.

First, we estimated the coverage of each indicator, or the proportion of women or births obtaining each 

MCH service or outcome, using data from both Uganda surveys (2011 and 2016), for the treatment and 

each control area. We then calculated the percentage point difference between the two surveys for each area

by subtracting the proportions in 2011 from those in 2016. After appending the two datasets, we conducted 

logit regression to test the significance of the change between the two surveys.

Next, to obtain the difference-in-differences estimate, we subtracted the percentage point difference of 

coverage of each indicator in each control area from the percentage point difference in the treatment area.

We tested the significance of the difference-in-differences estimate by, again, conducting logit regression, 

one model for each pair of treatment-control areas. The unadjusted models contain dichotomous variables 

for the year of the survey (coded as 1 for mothers in 2016 and 0 for mothers in 2011); for residence (coded

as 1 in the treatment districts and 0 in the control districts); and for the interaction between the two. The 

interaction term is the product of year of interview and residence in either treatment or control district:1 if 

the mother resided in the intervention area in 2016 and 0 if the mother resided in the control area in 2016

or was a respondent in the 2011 survey. Adjusted models controlled for mother’s characteristics, including

type of place of residence (urban or rural), wealth quintile, education (none, primary, secondary or higher), 

maternal age at birth (under 20, 20-34, 35 and above), and marital status (either currently married or not). 

We determined statistical significance of the difference-in-differences from the p-value for the interaction 

term in the unadjusted and adjusted models. We conducted our analysis using Stata 15 with adjustments 

made for survey design using the svy command.
9

3 RESULTS

As Table 3 shows, overall, in both the treatment districts and in the control areas there were substantial 

improvements in the indicators of maternal and child health, care-seeking behavior, and key life-saving 

interventions for mothers and children during pregnancy and birth. While gains were made for PNC for the 

mother and baby, in both treatment and control areas, PNC still lagged far behind the coverage of other 

indicators. For example, in the SMGL treatment area, although 70% of births were delivered in a health 

facility, only 34% of mothers reported receiving a check-up in the two days after delivery, and only 40% of

babies were examined by a skilled provider. Appendix Table 1 includes corresponding 95% confidence 

intervals of the estimates.

Logit regressions assessing the significance of the change between the two surveys in the treatment area 

revealed a significant change for most of these indicators, including 4+ ANC visits, urine sample taken 

during ANC, blood pressure measurement during ANC, PNC for the baby within two days of birth by a 

skilled provider, facility delivery, and skilled birth attendance. Each of these indicators improved by over 

15 percentage points between the two surveys. C-section rates increased from 3% to 6%, though a 

significant change was not detected.

The difference-in-differences analysis revealed mixed findings, as Table 3 shows. Some indicators 

demonstrated larger gains in the treatment area than in the control areas, including blood pressure 

measurement during ANC for a woman’s last pregnancy in the previous three years and C-sections among 

all births in the preceding three years. The analysis also revealed many negative difference-in-differences,

such that the treatment area showed smaller gains than the control areas. This pattern appeared for the 

proportion of women who received PNC and whose babies received PNC. For other indicators, such as 4+ 

ANC, urine sample, facility delivery, and SBA, the direction of the difference-in-difference estimate varied 

when the treatment area was compared with the various control areas.

With a few exceptions, the difference-in-differences analysis largely failed to detect a significant advantage 

in the intervention area. Measurement of blood pressure during ANC increased from 42% in 2011 to 67% 

in 2016 (25 percentage points) in the treatment area (p-value < 0.001), while in the rest of the country 

(control 3), blood pressure measurement increased only 12 percentage points, from 59% to 71%. Although 

the change in the treatment area was double that in control area 3, the significance was only at the .05 level 

in the unadjusted (UA) and adjusted (A) logit models. We found a significant difference-in-difference 

between the treatment area and control area 1 for C-sections, because in control area 1 the proportion of 

births delivered by C-section actually decreased by 2 percentage points, rendering a significant differencein-difference estimate of 5 percentage points (p-value < .05) in the unadjusted and adjusted models.

Appendix tables 2 – 9 contain the results of each regression model, with one table for each outcome 

examined in this analysis, and include unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios as well as corresponding pvalues.
10

Table 3 Estimates and percentage difference in the estimates in the SMGL intervention areas and 

control areas, Uganda DHS 2011 and 2016

SMGL Intervention Control 1 Control 2 Control 3

2011 2016 2011 2016 2011 2016 2011 2016

% %

Difference1 % %Difference1 % %Difference1 % %Difference1

Among women with a birth in the last 3 years

Four or more ANC visits 43.0 59.3 16.3*** 32.5 60.0 27.5*** 41.6 61.9 20.3** 47.5 60.3 12.8***

Urine sample taken during ANC 15.8 32.7 16.9** 13.5 37.1 23.6*** 23.8 38.2 14.4** 22.4 38.7 16.3***

BP measured during ANC 41.6 67.2 25.6*** 49.5 60.4 10.9ns 58.6 69.1 10.5ns 59.3 71.2 11.9***

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider (mother) 26.7 33.9 7.2ns 19.9 38.3 18.4*** 25.5 42.9 17.4*** 34.2 55.7 21.5***

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider (baby) 6.3 39.5 33.2*** 3.3 38.1 34.8*** 9.9 43.9 34.0*** 11.0 57.0 46.0***

Among births in the last 3 years

Facility delivery 51.8 69.9 18.1* 46.8 70.6 23.8* 51.3 71.3 20.0** 59.6 75.5 15.9***

Skilled birth attendance 48.8 71.0 22.2** 48.8 71.1 22.3* 54.0 73.0 19.0** 60.3 76.1 15.8***

C-section 2.7 5.9 3.2ns 7.2 5.5 -1.7ns 9.0 8.5 -0.5ns 5.6 6.7 1.1*

1Percentage point difference between 2011 and 2016 with significant tests for the difference in proportions, p-values: *<0.05; **<0.01; ***<0.001, and 

ns = non-significant.

Table 4 The difference-in-differences between SMGL intervention areas and control areas, Uganda DHS 

2011 and 2016 with unadjusted (UA) and adjusted (A) tests of significance

SMGL -

Control 1

UA 

p-value

A 

p-value

SMGL -

Control 2

UA 

p-value

A 

p-value

SMGL -

Control 3

UA 

p-value

A 

p-value

Among women with a birth in the last 3 years

Four or more ANC visits -11.2 ns ns -4.0 ns ns 3.5 ns ns

Urine sample taken during ANC -6.7 ns ns 2.5 ns ns 0.6 ns ns

BP measured during ANC 14.7 ns * 15.1 ns * 13.7 * *

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider (mother) -11.2 ns ns -10.2 ns ns -14.3 ns ns

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider (baby) -1.6 ns ns -0.8 ns ns -12.8 ns ns

Among births in the last 3 years

Facility delivery -5.7 ns ns -1.9 ns ns 2.2 ns ns

Skilled birth Attendance -0.1 ns ns 3.2 ns ns 6.4 ns ns

C-section 4.9 * * 3.7 ns ns 2.1 ns ns

Note: The significance of the difference-in-differences was obtained from logit regressions, which test the null hypothesis that the change for each 

outcome from 2011 to 2016 is the same in the intervention area as in the control areas. Unadjusted and adjusted p-values: *<0.05; **<0.01; ***<0.001, 

and ns = non-significant. Adjusted p-values control for place of residence, wealth, education, maternal age at birth and marital status.
11

We conducted a post-hoc power analysis to determine the probability of correctly rejecting the null 

hypotheses given that an alternative hypothesis is in fact true. Incorrectly retaining the null hypothesis can 

occur simply because the sample size is insufficient. We found that this analysis lacked sufficient power 

(with a standard of 80%) to detect a significant change (α < .05) between the two surveys among women 

(or births) in the treatment area for several indicators, including PNC for the mother and C-section. With 

relatively rare events and little change over time for indicators such as, for example, C-section, which 

increased from 2.7% to 5.9% of births, 1,382 births would be needed to detect a significant difference with 

power >.80 and α < .05, given equal sample sizes between two surveys. 

We conducted several robustness checks for our analysis. First, we examined the change in the same 

outcomes in the treatment and control areas using the 2006 and 2011 surveys–the two conducted in Uganda 

before the launch of the SMGL initiative. An important assumption for this type of analysis–the common 

trends assumption–is that the treatment and control areas shared similar trajectories before any intervention 

(Blundell and Costa Dias 2005). In Figure 2 we present the trends before and during the SMGL initiative–

that is, between the 2006 and 2011 surveys and between the 2011 and 2016 survey–for four indicators: 4+ 

ANC visits, blood pressure measurement during ANC, SBA, and C-section. In each graph, a solid line 

between two surveys represents a significant change from one survey to the next, and a dotted line indicates 

no significant change. As the graphs show, the common trends assumption holds most strongly when 

comparing the treatment area with control area 3 (the rest of Uganda) for the indicators 4+ ANC, blood 

pressure measurement, and SBA, but not C-section.

In the treatment area the proportion of births delivered by C-section was smaller among births in the three

years preceding the 2011 survey than births in the three years preceding the 2006 survey. Between 2011 

and 2016, however, the proportion increased two-fold (as discussed above). Conversely, in almost all 

control areas there was a larger increase between 2006 and 2011, followed by minimal change or even 

declines between 2011 and 2016. However, as discussed above, the treatment area and the first two control 

areas lacked sufficient power to detect a significant difference between the two most recent surveys (2011 

and 2016).

The graphs in Figure 2 further depict the findings of our difference-in-differences analysis. Compared with 

the control areas, the treatment area did not demonstrate larger improvement in 4+ ANC visits or SBA. 

However, more rapid improvements appear for blood pressure measurement during ANC and C-section 

within the treatment area, even if the gains compared with the control areas are mostly non-significant in 

the analysis.
12

Figure 5 Trends in MCH indicators, 2006-2016

Note: A solid line indicates a significant change between two surveys, while a dotted line indicates no significant change.

A second robustness check explored additional indicators not directly related to the program, including use

of modern contraception, intermittent preventative treatment (IPTp) for malaria (3 doses), immediate 

breastfeeding practices (among facility births), and receipt of the 3-series diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis 

vaccine (results not shown). We found no significant difference-in-differences for these indicators, with 

exception to IPTp consumption. IPTp use significantly decreased during the study period while at the same 

time increased in the control areas with the results indicating a significant negative difference-in-difference.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2011 2016 % of women

4+ ANC 

SMGL Control 1 Control 2 Control 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2011 2016 % of women with ANC

Blood pressure measurement

SMGL Control 1 Control 2 Control 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2011 2016 % of births

Delivered by an SBA

SMGL Control 1 Control 2 Control 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2006 2011 2016 % of births

Delivered by C-Section

SMGL Control 1 Control 2 Control 3
13

4 DISCUSSION

This study applied a difference-in-differences analysis to assess the potential impact of the SMGL initiative 

in the districts subject to the interventions on indicators that reflect the use and quality of MCH services 

compared with selected control areas. Using data from a sequence of UDHS surveys, we found that, among 

mothers sampled in the treatment districts, there were improvements in most of the indicators of care 

received during pregnancy and birth. We found that PNC still lags behind other indicators of service 

utilization and that C-section rates are still far below the 10-15% of births where the procedure may be 

medically indicated (Betran et al 2016).

The improvements in the SMGL area were mostly not significantly different from the differences in the 

three control areas. Two exceptions were in the differences-in-differences of blood pressure measurement 

during ANC between the treatment area compared with the rest of Uganda (control 3) and C-section in the 

comparison between the treatment area and a limited number of contiguous districts (control 1). These 

results may suggest that SMGL was perhaps more effective at strengthening the quality and health care 

system capacity than generating demand and improving the use of services, with exception to PNC. If a 

woman is discharged soon after birth and has not yet had a postnatal check, she may face additional barriers 

to PNC, including travel time to health facilities, as well as lack of knowledge about the importance of 

PNC, or concerns about the health system (Kiwanuka et al. 2008; Mrisho et al. 2009; Nabukera et al. 2006). 

The activities of the initiative centered around increasing service utilization and improving quality of care 

for facility delivery; perhaps promoting postnatal care was either neglected or ineffective against the coexisting barriers to care. However, all results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample 

sizes.

Globally, similar programs aimed at addressing the “three delays” of maternal health care have 

demonstrated success. An evaluation of a rural participatory women’s group community intervention and a 

quality improvement intervention at health centers focusing on maternal, perinatal, and neonatal mortality 

was conducted in three districts of Malawi (Colbourn et al. 2013). Similar to SMGL, these interventions 

emphasized community mobilization (demand) and facility improvement (quality). Using a randomized 

control trial, the authors found a significantly larger decrease in neonatal mortality in districts with both 

interventions, and a significantly lower perinatal mortality rate in community-intervention locations 

(Colbourn et al. 2013) compared with the control areas. Another program, the Maternal and Neonatal 

Implementation for Equitable Systems (MANIFEST) study in eastern Uganda, a multisectoral approach to 

address access to maternal and newborn care, was evaluated using a quasi-experimental pre- and postcomparison design (Ekirapa-Kiracho et al. 2017). This program also focused on community mobilization 

(demand) and health provider capacity strengthening (quality) as vehicles to improve use of antenatal, 

skilled delivery, and postnatal care, as well as care for newborns. The authors conducted a survey of the 

target and control areas and, similar to our approach, used a difference-in-differences analysis. Their 

analysis revealed increases in early ANC and facility delivery and showed that these differences were 

greater than those in the control area.

An external evaluation of SMGL in Kalomo, Zambia, was conducted using a difference-in-differences 

method, focusing on facility-based birth and delivery with a skilled birth provider between the Kalomo 

district and three comparison districts (Henry et al. 2017). While we used DHS data to evaluate the impact 
14

of SMGL, White and colleagues used data from the Zambia Chlorhexidine Application Trial (ZamCAT) to 

conduct their analysis. They found an increase in facility-based births from 55% before the intervention to 

65% during the intervention and a non-significant increase in the proportion of women delivering with a 

skilled birth attendant at health facilities in Kalomo (Henry et al. 2017). This suggests that while SMGL 

was successful in creating demand for facility delivery, the training of health providers did not match those 

successes.

The present study has several strengths. First, the DHS data were collected independently from SMGL. 

Using an external data source may eliminate the potential for biased reporting. Second, the two most recent

DHS surveys were well timed to capture groups of women before and after the launch of the SMGL 

initiative. As the DHS survey is nationally representative, with samples of women drawn from most districts

in the country, we were able to examine various control areas to gain a more robust picture of the effect of 

the SMGL program.

However, an important limitation of the study is the sample size, which likely affected both the statistical 

significance of the tests and the precision of the estimates. Post-hoc power analysis and robustness checks 

show that the analysis may have been underpowered to detect significant differences and that the MCH 

care-seeking behaviors in the treatment area were not consistent with those in all of the control areas prior 

to the study. The estimates for the four treatment districts were based on only 500 women interviewed in 

the 2016 UDHS who had given birth in the previous three years. Given that the population size for these 

four districts exceeded 2 million people, according to the 2014 census (UBOS and ICF International 2014), 

our estimates should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, given the small sample sizes at the subregional level, DHS data are not intended to be representative by districts; thus we cannot conclude that 

this sample reflects all women who might have been exposed to the program. Based on this study alone, 

there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the SMGL program was ineffective. As described above, 

studies have shown that community mobilization and facility improvement activities are successfully 

improving facility delivery, delivery with skilled birth attendants, and neonatal and perinatal survival. That

this analysis does not show these results may reflect the limitation of our study rather than the program in

Uganda, as the analysis was performed on a small sample size of mothers with a birth or births occurring 

in the three years preceding the survey.

Another limitation is that we were unable to state clearly that the control areas–or our treatment area for

that matter–were not subject to the effects of other programs. Per USAID’s Foreign Aid Explorer,

approximately 300 basic health care and reproductive health care projects that include USAID assistance 

were active during the period between fiscal years 2012 and 2017 (USAID), overlapping the active period 

of the SMGL initiative. This tally does not account for projects that were implemented without USAID’s 

involvement, such as those organized by other foreign donors. In an external evaluation conducted at the 

Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Kruk et al. (2013) identified two nearby districts 

that had no similar intervention as controls in their study. However, the sample of women in these two 

districts in the DHS survey was even smaller than the treatment area (92 mothers in 2011 and 159 mothers 

in 2016). Assuming that other nearby districts were without a similar intervention, it may be plausible that 

women in the control areas would bypass care at their nearby facilities to seek better care in the intervention 

area, choosing to use services in the program districts instead, and thus potentially diminishing the 

differences seen in this analysis. 
15

Finally, the sample in our study was limited to mothers with a birth or births occurring in the three years 

preceding the survey. The oldest birth or pregnancy in the treatment area could have occurred as early as 

2013. Therefore, women with births at that time may not have been exposed to the program for long enough 

to affect their care-seeking behavior. Behavior change can evolve over many years, according to the 

Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (Prochaska and Velicer. 1997). We attempted to examine only 

pregnancies and births in the year preceding the survey; however, the sample size was even smaller. Future 

studies may benefit from using the next round of DHS data collected in Uganda. In addition, we recommend 

using propensity score matching to specify the control area(s) for further analysis.

17

5 CONCLUSION

Improving access to and use of high-quality maternal health care services is critical to preventing 

preventable maternal and newborn deaths. The SMGL initiative in Uganda supported activities intended to 

achieve these objectives, while also bolstering the health system in the districts where SMGL was 

implemented. Overall, many improvements in maternal and child health appear in the districts under the 

purview of the SMGL initiative, surrounding districts, and Uganda as a whole. Our analysis was unable to 

detect many improvements in MCH in the geographic area of the SMGL program that significantly 

exceeded those in the rest of Uganda, possibly due to the study’s small sample size. Although we believe 

our study benefits from using external data that may be free from biases, more investigation is needed.

19

REFERENCES

Ackers, L., E. Ioannou, and J. Ackers-Johnson. 2016. “The Impact of Delays on Maternal and Neonatal 

Outcomes in Ugandan Public Health Facilities: The Role of Absenteeism.” Health Policy and Planning

31 (9): 1152-1161. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czw046.

Basu, D. 1980. “Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test.”

Journal of the American Statistical Association 75 (371): 575-582. 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1980.10477512.

Betran, A. P., M. R. Torloni, J. J. Zhang, A. M. Gülmezoglu, WHO Working Group on Caesarean 

Section, H. A. Aleem, et al. 2016. “WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates.” BJOG: An 

International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 123 (5): 667-670. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-

0528.13526.

Blundell, R., and M. Costa Dias. 2005. “Evaluation Methods for Non‐Experimental Data.” Fiscal Studies

21 (4): 427-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x.

Colbourn, T., B. Nambiar, A. Bondo, C. Makwenda, E. Tsetekani, A. Makonda-Ridley, M. Msukwa, et 

al. 2013. “Effects of Quality Improvement in Health Facilities and Community Mobilization through 

Women’s Groups on Maternal, Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality in Three Districts of Malawi: 

Maikhanda, a Cluster Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial.” International Health 5 (3): 180-195. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/iht011.

Ekirapa-Kiracho, E., R. Muhumuza Kananura, M. Tetui, G. Namazzi, A. Mutebi, A. George, L. Paina, et 

al. 2017. “Effect of a Participatory Multisectoral Maternal and Newborn Intervention on Maternal Health 

Service Utilization and Newborn Care Practices: A Quasi-Experimental Study in Three Rural Ugandan 

Districts.” Global Health Action 10 (sup4): 1363506. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1363506.

Epiu, I., A. Wabule, A. Kambugu, H. Mayanja-Kizza, J. V. B. Tindimwebwa, and G. Dubowitz. 2017. 

“Key Bottlenecks to the Provision of Safe Obstetric Anaesthesia in Low- Income Countries; a CrossSectional Survey of 64 Hospitals in Uganda.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 17 (1): 387. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1566-3.

Forshaw, J., S. Raybould, E. Lewis, M. Muyingo, A. Weeks, K. Reed, L. Manikam, and J. Byamugisha. 

2016. “Exploring the Third Delay: An Audit Evaluating Obstetric Triage at Mulago National Referral 

Hospital.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 16 (1): 300. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1098-2.

Gertler, P., S. Martinez, P. Premand, L.B. Rawlings, and C. Vermeersch. 2011. Evaluation in Practice. 

Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank.

Henry, E. G., D. M. Thea, D. H. Hamer, W. DeJong, K. Musokotwane, K. Chibwe, G. Biemba, and K. 

Semrau. 2017. “The Impact of a Multi-Level Maternal Health Programme on Facility Delivery and 

Capacity for Emergency Obstetric Care in Zambia.” Global Public Health: 1-14. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2017.1385824.
20

Kiwanuka, S. N., E. K. Ekirapa, S. Peterson, O. Okui, M. H. Rahman, D. Peters, et al. 2008. “Access to 

and Utilisation of Health Services for the Poor in Uganda: a Systematic Review of Available Evidence.”

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2008;102(11):1067–74.

Kruk, M. E., S. Galea, K. Grepin, and M. Rabkin. 2013. Final Report: External Evaluation of Saving 

Mothers, Giving Life. New York: Columbia University.

Mbonye, A. K., J. B. Asimwe, J. Kabarangira, G. Nanda, and V. Orinda. 2007. “Emergency Obstetric 

Care as the Priority Intervention to Reduce Maternal Mortality in Uganda.” International Journal of 

Gynecology and Obstetrics 96: 220-225. http://library.health.go.ug/publications/service-delivery-sexualand-reproductive-health/maternal-health/emergency-obstetric.

Ministry of Health, R. o. U. 2007. Roadmap for Accelerating the Reduction of Maternal and Neonatal 

Mortality and Morbidity in Uganda 2007-2015. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Health. 

http://library.health.go.ug/publications/service-delivery/sexual-and-reproductive-health/roadmapaccelerating-reduction-maternal.

Ministry of Health, R. o. U. 2010a. Health Sector Strategic and Investment Plan: Promoting People’s 

Health to Enhance Socio-Economic Development 2010/11 – 2014/15. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of 

Health. http://www.health.go.ug/docs/HSSIP10.pdf.

Ministry of Health, R. o. U. 2010b. Uganda Clinical Guidelines 2010 National Guidelines for 

Management of Common Conditions. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Health. 

http://www.health.go.ug/docs/ucg_2010.pdf.

Mrisho, M., B. Obrist, J. A. Schellenberg, R. A. Haws, A. K. Mushi, H. Mshinda, et al. 2009. “The Use of 

Antenatal and Postnatal Care: Perspectives and Experiences of Women and Health Care Providers in 

Rural Southern Tanzania.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 9(1): 10.

Nabukera, S. K., K. Witte, C. Muchunguzi, F. Bajunirwe, V. K. Batwala, E. M. Mulogo, et al. 2006. “Use 

of Postpartum Health Services in Rural Uganda: Knowledge, Attitudes and Barriers." Journal of 

Community Health. 31(2): 84-93.

Ngonzi, J., Y. F. Tornes, P. K. Mukasa, W. Salongo, J. Kabakyenga, M. Sezalio, K. Wouters, Y. 

Jacqueym, and J.-P. Van Geertruyden. 2016. “Puerperal Sepsis, the Leading Cause of Maternal Deaths at 

a Tertiary University Teaching Hospital in Uganda.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 16 (1): 207. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0986-9.

Ononge, S., E. S. Okello, and F. Mirembe. 2016. “Excessive Bleeding Is a Normal Cleansing Process: A 

Qualitative Study of Postpartum Haemorrhage among Rural Uganda Women.” BMC Pregnancy and 

Childbirth 16 (1): 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1014-9.

Prochaska, J. O., and W. F. Velicer. 1997. “The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change.”

American Journal of Health Promotion 12 (1): 38-48. 

http://www.chan6es.com/uploads/5/0/4/8/5048463/transtheoretical_model_of_health_behaviour_change.

pdf.
21

Saving Mothers, Giving Life. 2014. Saving Mothers, Giving Life Primer. 

http://savingmothersgivinglife.org/docs/SMGL_Primer_May2014.pdf.

Saving Mothers, Giving Life. 2017. Who We Are. http://savingmothersgivinglife.org/who-we-are.aspx.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and ICF. 2018. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2016. 

Kampala, Uganda: UBOS and ICF. http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR333/FR333.pdf.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and ICF International. 2012. Uganda Demographic and Health 

Survey 2011. Kampala, Uganda: UBOS and ICF International. 

http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR264/FR264.pdf.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and ICF International. 2014. National Population and Housing 

Census 2014 Main Report. Kampala, Uganda. 

http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/NPHC/2014%20National%20Census%20Main%20Report.

pdf.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and ORC Macro. 2001. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 

2000-2001. Calverton, Maryland, USA: UBOS and ORC Macro. 

http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR128/FR128.pdf.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Foreign Aid Explorer: The Official 

Record of U.S. Foreign Aid. https://explorer.usaid.gov/.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2012. The Who Application of Icd-10 to Deaths During Pregnancy, 

Childbirth and Puerperium: Icd Mm. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70929/9789241548458_eng.pdf;jsessionid=13556B389B

CF4394482C678D7513E5DC?sequence=1.

Wright, J. 2015. Essential Package of Health Services Country Snapshot: Uganda. Bethesda, MD: Health 

Finance & Governance Project, Abt Associates Inc. https://www.hfgproject.org/essential-package-ofhealth-services-country-snapshot-uganda/.

23

APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1 Estimates, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI), and percentage difference in the estimates in 

SMGL intervention area and control areas, Uganda DHS 2011 and 2016

SMGL Intervention Control 1

2011 2016 2011 2016

% 95% CI % 95% CI Difference1 % 95% CI % 95% CI Difference1

Among women with a birth in the last 3 

years

Four or more ANC visits 43.0 [36.8-49.3] 59.3 [53.7-64.6] 16.3*** 32.5 [21.1-46.4] 60.0 [53.2-66.4] 27.5***

Urine sample taken during ANC 15.8 [9.7-24.6] 32.7 [24.8-41.6] 16.9** 13.5 [8.3-21.4] 37.1 [30.4-44.4] 23.6***

BP measured during ANC 41.6 [31.6-52.4] 67.2 [61.0-72.8] 25.6*** 49.5 [37.0-62.0] 60.4 [52.6-67.7] 10.9ns

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider 

(mother) 26.7 [15.4-42.2] 33.9 [28.8-39.4] 7.2ns 19.9 [12.8-29.7] 38.3 [33.3-43.5] 18.4***

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider 

(baby) 6.3 [2.7-14.1] 39.5 [33.4-45.9] 33.2*** 3.3 [1.4-7.7] 38.1 [32.4-44.1] 34.8***

Among births in the last 3 years

Facility Delivery 51.8 [35.8-67.3] 69.9 [63.3-75.7] 18.1* 46.8 [28.7-65.8] 70.6 [63.4-76.9] 23.8*

Skilled Birth Attendance 48.8 [33.7-64.0] 71.0 [64.5-76.7] 22.2** 48.8 [29.7-68.3] 71.1 [63.7-77.6] 22.3*

C-section 2.7 [1.2-5.9] 5.9 [3.7-9.4] 3.2ns 7.2 [4.0-12.8] 5.5 [3.9-7.7] -1.7ns

(Continued...)

Appendix Table 1–Continued

Control 2 Control 3

2011 2016 2011 2016

% 95% CI % 95% CI Difference1 % 95% CI % 95% CI Difference1

Among women with a birth in the last 3 

years

Four or more ANC visits 41.6 [28.7-55.7] 61.9 [56.9-66.7] 20.3** 47.5 [45.0-50.0] 60.3 [58.7-61.9] 12.8***

Urine sample taken during ANC 23.8 [16.2-33.5] 38.2 [33.1-43.5] 14.4** 22.4 [20.6-24.5] 38.7 [36.8-40.5] 16.3***

BP measured during ANC 58.6 [46.9-69.4] 69.1 [62.7-74.8] 10.5 59.3 [56.7-61.9] 71.2 [69.3-73.0] 11.9***

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider 

(mother) 25.5 [18.0-34.8] 42.9 [38.3-47.7] 17.4*** 34.2 [31.8-36.6] 55.7 [53.7-57.7] 21.5***

PNC in 2 days by a skilled provider (baby) 9.9 [5.2-18.2] 43.9 [38.8-49.1] 34.0*** 11.0 [9.7-12.4] 57.0 [55.0-59.1] 46.0***

Among births in the last 3 years

Facility Delivery 51.3 [37.4-65.1] 71.3 [65.3-76.5] 20.0** 59.6 [56.5-62.7] 75.5 [73.5-77.3] 15.9***

Skilled Birth Attendance 54.0 [39.0-68.3] 73.0 [67.1-78.1] 19.0** 60.3 [57.2-63.3] 76.1 [74.1-78.0] 15.8***

C-section 9.0 [5.9-13.3] 8.5 [6.6-10.9] -0.5ns 5.6 [4.8-6.5] 6.7 [6.0-7.5] 1.1*

1Percentage point difference between two surveys and between 2011 and 2016 with significant tests for the difference in proportions

p-values *<0.05; **<0.01; ***<0.001
24

Appendix Table 2 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of attending four or more antenatal care visits 

during the last pregnancy in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, 

Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 0.6 <0.001 2.9 <0.001 0.8 0.004 2.2 0.005 1.2 0.000 1.7 <0.001

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 1.6 0.103 1.4 0.185 1.1 0.840 1.0 0.953 0.8 0.175 0.8 0.126

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 0.6 0.146 0.7 0.273 0.8 0.614 0.9 0.861 1.2 0.428 1.2 0.251

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 1.7 0.003 1.5 0.020 1.1 0.140

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 1.0 0.958 1.1 0.624 1.1 0.080

Middle 1.2 0.346 1.2 0.502 1.2 0.004

Fourth 1.4 0.216 1.4 0.142 1.4 <0.001

Highest 1.1 0.645 1.3 0.303 1.5 <0.001

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 1.3 0.211 1.3 0.158 1.0 0.777

Secondary or higher 1.8 0.029 2.0 0.005 1.3 0.001

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 0.8 0.416 0.9 0.735 1.0 0.423

Age 35 or older 0.6 0.005 0.7 0.088 0.8 0.003

Marital status

Not married 0.8 0.167 0.8 0.150 0.8 <0.001

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0

Appendix Table 3 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of having urine tested in an antenatal care visit 

during the last pregnancy in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, 

Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 0.7 <0.001 3.5 <0.001 1.3 0.007 1.8 0.008 1.2 <0.001 2.1 <0.001

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 1.2 0.609 1.1 0.785 0.6 0.139 0.6 0.146 0.6 0.096 0.6 0.199

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 0.7 0.370 0.8 0.581 1.3 0.507 1.6 0.332 1.2 0.577 1.4 0.425

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 1.0 0.929 1.3 0.162 1.3 0.001

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 1.3 0.372 1.4 0.184 1.1 0.316

Middle 1.3 0.454 1.4 0.239 1.3 0.008

Fourth 1.8 0.053 1.8 0.057 1.5 <0.001

Highest 2.1 0.024 2.2 0.012 2.4 <0.001

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 1.2 0.306 1.2 0.196 1.1 0.557

Secondary or higher 1.8 0.010 2.0 0.001 1.6 <0.001

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 0.8 0.170 0.8 0.171 0.9 0.053

Age 35 or older 0.5 0.008 0.6 0.012 0.8 0.026

Marital status

Not married 1.0 0.883 0.9 0.329 1.0 0.619

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0
25

Appendix Table 4 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of having blood pressure measured in an 

antenatal care visit during the last pregnancy in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention 

and control areas, Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 1.8 0.096 1.4 0.178 1.8 0.083 1.5 0.103 1.7 <0.001 1.6 <0.001

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 0.7 0.294 0.7 0.188 0.5 0.022 0.5 0.018 0.5 0.001 0.5 0.023

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 1.8 0.091 2.2 0.036 1.8 0.100 2.1 0.044 1.7 0.039 2.0 0.048

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 1.2 0.503 1.2 0.553 1.7 <0.001

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 1.0 0.993 1.2 0.438 0.7 <0.001

Middle 1.2 0.398 1.5 0.116 0.8 0.041

Fourth 1.6 0.099 2.0 0.009 1.1 0.401

Highest 1.6 0.166 2.0 0.035 1.8 <0.001

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 1.2 0.320 1.2 0.242 0.9 0.182

Secondary or higher 1.9 0.022 1.9 0.020 1.4 0.004

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 1.4 0.018 1.3 0.037 1.2 0.003

Age 35 or older 1.2 0.278 1.2 0.386 1.5 <0.001

Marital status

Not married 0.8 0.258 0.8 0.277 0.9 0.385

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0

Appendix Table 5 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of the mother's receipt of postnatal care in the 2

days after delivery of the most recent child born in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention 

and control areas, Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 0.6 <0.001 2.3 0.001 0.6 0.001 2.1 <0.001 0.6 <0.001 2.4 <0.001

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 1.5 0.352 1.3 0.394 1.1 0.880 1.0 0.953 0.7 0.299 0.7 0.134

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 0.6 0.193 0.7 0.266 0.6 0.320 0.8 0.428 0.6 0.129 0.6 0.117

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 1.0 0.985 1.2 0.421 1.3 0.011

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 1.6 0.081 1.7 0.050 0.9 0.062

Middle 2.2 0.003 2.2 0.001 1.0 0.498

Fourth 1.9 0.026 2.1 0.009 1.0 0.819

Highest 3.3 <0.001 3.8 <0.001 1.7 <0.001

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 0.9 0.717 1.0 0.919 1.1 0.336

Secondary or higher 1.7 0.006 1.8 0.002 1.9 0.000

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 1.2 0.382 1.3 0.176 1.0 0.788

Age 35 or older 0.8 0.463 0.9 0.620 0.9 0.481

Marital status

Not married 1.2 0.291 1.0 0.862 1.1 0.234

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0
26

Appendix Table 6 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of the baby's receipt of postnatal care in the two 

days after delivery for the most recent child born in the last 3 years in SMGL 

intervention and control areas, Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 0.5 <0.001 16.6 <0.001 1.4 <0.001 7.0 <0.001 0.9 <0.001 10.9 <0.001

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 1.9 0.246 1.7 0.420 0.6 0.349 0.5 0.282 0.5 0.137 0.5 0.196

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 0.5 0.312 0.7 0.558 1.4 0.568 1.7 0.373 0.9 0.816 1.0 0.999

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 1.1 0.783 1.2 0.325 1.4 0.001

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 1.7 0.069 1.7 0.059 0.8 0.006

Middle 1.7 0.049 1.8 0.020 0.8 0.052

Fourth 1.5 0.213 1.8 0.065 1.0 0.585

Highest 2.4 0.002 2.7 <0.001 1.2 0.145

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 1.2 0.376 1.2 0.270 1.0 0.867

Secondary or higher 2.6 <0.001 2.8 <0.001 1.8 <0.001

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 0.9 0.631 0.9 0.745 0.9 0.151

Age 35 or older 0.6 0.038 0.6 0.017 0.9 0.100

Marital status

Not married 1.2 0.217 1.1 0.720 1.2 0.030

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0

Appendix Table 7 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of delivery in a health facility, among children 

born in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 0.8 0.006 2.2 0.026 0.9 0.004 2.1 0.012 1.0 <0.001 2.0 <0.001

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 1.2 0.661 1.0 0.985 1.0 0.969 0.9 0.820 0.7 0.309 0.7 0.108

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 0.8 0.642 1.2 0.731 0.9 0.858 1.2 0.602 1.0 0.920 1.2 0.494

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 1.8 0.101 1.8 0.044 1.8 <0.001

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 1.1 0.568 1.2 0.404 1.1 0.375

Middle 2.0 0.001 2.0 0.001 1.3 <0.001

Fourth 1.9 0.013 2.0 0.003 1.5 <0.001

Highest 5.7 <0.001 5.2 <0.001 3.9 <0.001

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 2.0 <0.001 1.7 0.002 1.4 <0.001

Secondary or higher 4.6 <0.001 3.9 <0.001 2.9 <0.001

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 0.7 0.055 0.7 0.049 0.7 <0.001

Age 35 or older 0.5 0.008 0.6 0.011 0.6 <0.001

Marital status

Not married 1.2 0.395 1.1 0.530 1.1 0.133

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0
27

Appendix Table 8 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of having a skilled attendant at birth, among 

children born in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 1.0 0.012 2.1 0.044 1.1 0.008 2.0 0.020 1.2 <0.001 2.0 <0.001

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 1.0 0.999 0.8 0.568 0.8 0.615 0.7 0.344 0.6 0.119 0.6 0.036

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 1.0 0.991 1.5 0.394 1.1 0.810 1.5 0.301 1.2 0.551 1.4 0.205

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 1.7 0.158 1.8 0.073 1.9 <0.001

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 1.0 0.856 1.1 0.606 1.1 0.302

Middle 1.9 0.015 1.9 0.008 1.4 <0.001

Fourth 1.8 0.037 2.0 0.011 1.6 <0.001

Highest 5.7 <0.001 5.5 <0.001 4.6 <0.001

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 1.9 <0.001 1.7 0.001 1.3 0.001

Secondary or higher 3.9 <0.001 3.4 <0.001 2.5 <0.001

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 0.7 0.095 0.7 0.084 0.7 <0.001

Age 35 or older 0.5 0.012 0.6 0.015 0.7 <0.001

Marital status

Not married 1.4 0.115 1.2 0.245 1.1 0.138

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0

Appendix Table 9 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of delivery by cesarean section, among children 

born in the last 3 years in SMGL intervention and control areas, Uganda

SMGL & Control 1 SMGL & Control 2 SMGL & Control 3 

UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value UOR p-value AOR p-value

Year

2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 3.0 0.353 0.6 0.130 2.4 0.821 0.9 0.509 1.8 0.048 1.1 0.230

Area

Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SMGL 0.4 0.033 0.3 0.031 0.3 0.005 0.3 0.011 0.5 0.050 0.5 0.121

Year*Area

2011 or 2016 in Control 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2016 in SMGL 3.0 0.049 3.9 0.024 2.4 0.097 2.9 0.061 1.8 0.173 2.3 0.118

Place of Residence

Rural 1.0 1.0 1.0

Urban 0.8 0.593 1.1 0.638 1.4 0.014

Wealth

Lowest 1.0 1.0 1.0

Second 2.0 0.219 1.8 0.256 1.3 0.085

Middle 2.0 0.212 2.0 0.129 2.1 <0.001

Fourth 2.0 0.201 2.8 0.036 2.1 <0.001

Highest 4.8 0.006 5.0 0.002 4.2 <0.001

Education

None 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary 1.2 0.614 1.0 0.931 1.1 0.430

Secondary or higher 2.1 0.077 1.4 0.434 1.9 0.001

Maternal age at birth

Less than 20 1.0 1.0 1.0

Age 20-34 0.9 0.624 0.8 0.395 0.8 0.017

Age 35 or older 0.6 0.360 0.7 0.394 0.9 0.764

Marital status

Not married 0.8 0.449 0.7 0.228 1.0 0.888

Married 1.0 1.0 1.0