Table 1: Characteristics of 15-49 year old women who gave birth in the 5 years before the survey

|Variable name - Defnition|All 15-49 year<br>old women|Women with 4<br>ANC|Women<br>doing<br>institutional<br>delivery|
|---|---|---|---|
|Women characteristics||||
|Lives in rural area (%)|62.3 (0.014)|57.1*** (0.017)|46.1*** (0.021)|
|Age (average in years)<br>|29.8 (0.123)<br>|30.0** (0.140)<br>|29.5** (0.205)<br>|
|Married (%)|85.6 (0.007)|86.3 (0.008)|83.5*** (0.011)|
|Has secondary education (%)<br>|44.1 (0.014)<br>|52.9*** (0.014)<br>|65.6*** (0.014)<br>|
|Has a job outside home (%)|55.8 (0.011)|59.6*** (0.011)|59.0*** (0.016)|
|Has access to information (%)|64.3 (0.013)|70.0*** (0.012)|77.1*** (0.014)|
|Number of births (average)|1.29 (0.012)|1.2*** (0.011)|1.2*** (0.011)|
|Household characteristics||||
|Average size|5.89 (0.056)|5.8*** (0.059)|5.8* (0.067)|
|In bottom 40 of wealth distribution (%)|42.0 (0.018)|33.3*** (0.011)|19.8*** (0.013)|
|Doesn’t have any means of transportation (%)|85.1 (0.009)|81.7*** (0.017)|77.7*** (0.013)|
|Doesn’t have media (radio, TV) to access info (%)|48.6 (0.013)|41.6*** (0.014)|33.7*** (0.017)|
|Cluster characteristics||||
|Mountainous (slope greater than 10%) (%)|24.7 (0.025)|21.0*** (0.024)|19.4*** (0.027)|
|Hhs in the cluster that are in Q1 (%)|21.4 (0.013)|16.7*** (0.010)|9.5*** (0.007)|
|Women with at least 4 ANC visits (%)<br>|66.6 (0.013)<br>|74.1*** (0.010)<br>|60.1*** (0.011)<br>|
|Adults (15 to 65) in the cluster that have at least|5.8 (0.004)|6.7*** (0.004)|8.9*** (0.006)|
|secondary education (%)||||
|Health facility characteristics in cluster vicinity||||
|Total (average)|46.75 (2.29)|48.58*** (2.33)|61.47*** (3.17)|
|Providing ANC services (average)<br>|40.81 (2.01)<br>|42.34*** (2.05)<br>|53.53*** (2.79)<br>|
|Providing normal delivery services (average)|13.49 (0.62)|13.92*** (0.64)|17.41*** (0.88)|
|Providing c-section services (average)|8.19 (0.46)|8.54*** (0.47)|11.09*** (0.65)|
|Providing ANC services at least 18 days a month (%)|0.86 (0.01)|86.1 (0.006)|86.8*** (0.006)|
|Facilities w/ ANC services w/ medication for ANC<br>(%)|25.0 (0.001)|25.2 (0.011)|23.5** (0.011)|
|Facilities w/ ANC services w/ equipment for ANC<br>(%)|49.1 (0.010)|49.7** (0.011)|49.5 (0.010)|
|Facilities w/ delivery services w/ equipment for de-|53.5 (0.015)|54.5* (0.015)|55.1* (0.014)|
|livery (%)||||

Note: Linearized standard errors into brackets. Testing against pregnant women not doing the mentioned institutional healthcare. Adjusted Wald test *** significant at 1% level; ** significant at 5% level; * significant at 10% level. New population weights for each year to reflect total women population in Haiti. Source: Authors’ estimates with EMMUS 2017

# **5 Findings**

## **5.1 Bivariate analysis**

First, we investigate how individual, household, cluster, and health facility characteristics affect women’s prevalence of institutional care depending on the barriers identified as salient in the literature (Table 2). We use a Wald test when the differences tested are binary and a t-student test by coefficient from an OLS regression when the variables are categorical.

In terms of the decision to seek care, women with better socioeconomic conditions (such as outside employment, secondary education, information, being in the top 60 percent of the 10