<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">WJA</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>World Journal of AIDS</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8814</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/wja.2015.52013</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">WJA-56876</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Does HIV Status Affect Utilization of Maternal Care Services among Women in India: An Analysis of NFHS 2005-2006
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>asudevan</surname><given-names>Jayachandran</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Damodar</surname><given-names>Sahu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Subramanian</surname><given-names>Rajaram</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bo</surname><given-names>Pedersen</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New York, USA</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Blantyre, Malawi</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Karnataka Health Promotion Trust (KHPT), Bangalore, India</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>National Institute of Medical Statistics (NIMS-ICMR), New Delhi, India</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>sahud@icmr.org.in(DS)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>19</day><month>05</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>105</fpage><lpage>112</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>16</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>31</month>	<year>May</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>3</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The objective of the study is to understand the relationship between HIV status, fertility and utilisa-tion of maternal care services in India using the NFHS 2005-2006 data. The mean number of children ever born (a measure of fertility) is substantially higher among HIV-negative women than among the HIV-positive women (2.8 and 2.1 respectively). Ten-year age specific fertility rates (ASFR) were calculated, there is no noticeable difference in pattern of ASFR between HIV-positive and HIV-negative category of women observed though the ASFRs were substantially lower among the HIV-positive women. The total fertility rate (TFR) among HIV-positive women (0.84) is substantially lower at one third of the TFR among HIV-negative women (2.78). The proportion of HIV-positive pregnant women utilising ANC services is 92 percent compared to 78 percent among HIV-negative women, who have alive birth during the 5-year preceding the survey. Similarly, the proportion of HIV-positive women (67%) delivering their babies in an institution is also much higher than among HIV-negative women (40%). This study concludes that the effort of the government to integrate ART services with maternity care services is likely to have benefited the HIV positive mothers.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>HIV-Positive</kwd><kwd> Total Fertility Rate</kwd><kwd> Reproductive Health</kwd><kwd> NFHS</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The Millennium Development Goal 5 on improving maternal health calls for reducing maternal mortality by increasing the institutional deliveries and access to reproductive health care services including antenatal care [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref1">1</xref>] . In India, women who received at least three antenatal visits for their last pregnancy and medical assistance at delivery increased between 1992 and 2006, from 44% to 51% and from 35% to 49%, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref2">2</xref>] . The increase though small is attributed to the Janani Suraksha Yojna launched by the National Rural Health Mission, which promotes both antenatal care services and institutional deliveries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>In addition to regional, urban rural and income variations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref4">4</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref6">6</xref>] in utilisation of maternal health care, individual factors such as age, religion, education level, caste [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref7">7</xref>] and health care level factors such as availability and accessibility of health care [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref8">8</xref>] affect the utilisation of health services. Among the individual factors, fertility, and parity of the mother are also considered as factors that determine the utilisation of the health facility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref8">8</xref>] . While there are studies which illustrate on these in general population, few studies in India and elsewhere talk about the fertility and utilisation of health services among women by HIV status.</p><p>Studies from high HIV prevalent countries which have attempted to understand fertility behaviour among the HIV positive women do not conclusively say about the difference in terms of pregnancy intentions or desires by HIV serostatus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref9">9</xref>] , however few studies suggest a reduced desire [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref11">11</xref>] . The decreased desire could be due to their apprehensions about their own health and upbringing of the child. Nevertheless, due to the importance and status a woman gets in the society in terms of her being pregnant or not pregnant, any differences in pregnancy cannot be attributed to the HIV status [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref12">12</xref>] . Recent studies also suggest that Anti Retroviral Therapy (ART) has increased opportunities and hopes for women wanting to be pregnant [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref13">13</xref>] . Few studies examine the relationship between HIV status and actual fertility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref14">14</xref>] and this is majorly due to limitation in the availability of prospective data that can establish the relationship of HIV status on fertility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref12">12</xref>] . A study in Vietnam suggests the positive association between awareness of HIV status and abortion [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref15">15</xref>] , though giving the variation in cultural practices from place to place, the findings cannot be generalised. Few studies also suggest that women who are HIV positive seldom go to the health care provider due to reasons such as stigma and health care provider’s negative attitude towards HIV positive women [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref16">16</xref>] . Contrary to this, studies examining the utilization of maternal health care services by HIV status illustrate an increasing utilisation of health care by the HIV positive compared to the negative [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref18">18</xref>] , majorly due to link of these services to the Ante Retroviral Treatment.</p><p>In India, though several studies have been carried out to understand the behavioural pattern including reproductive behaviour of the HIV infected population majorly among high-risk groups i.e., Female sex workers, Men having Sex with Men, Injecting Drug Users and long distance truck drivers who are clients of sex workers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref19">19</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref22">22</xref>] . Nevertheless few studies in India look specifically into the utilisation of maternal health services or fertility and reproductive health by HIV status. This is majorly due to absence of specific data pertaining to this.</p><p>In India, though NACO estimates that about 0.8 million women are HIV positive, majority of them are unaware of their HIV status [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref23">23</xref>] . NACO has in-fact identified this as one of the major challenges in addressing the issues of prevention of HIV in India. Under the NACP-IV, this is targeted as one of the major issues and voluntary testing and treatment is being promoted vehemently (NACO).</p><p>In this paper, we examine the relationship between HIV status, ANC utilisation and fertility among women in India. The specific objectives of this paper are to analyze and study the differentials in some of the key maternal and child health related indicators among HIV-positive and HIV-negative women in India including: 1) fertility pattern, 2) ANC utilisation, 3) delivery and post-natal care seeking and 4) experience of miscarriages.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Data and Methodology</title><p>Data used for the study is taken from third round of the National Family Health Surveys conducted during the years 2005-2006 (NFHS-3). NFHS is a large scale, multi -rounded household survey designed to provide estimates of indicators of fertility, mortality, family planning, health, and nutrition of women aged 15 - 49 years at the national and state levels. In NFHS-3, biological parameters by blood tests for HIV and anaemia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref2">2</xref>] were also collected. The necessary data required for this paper has been created by combining the HIV data records and the individual woman’s data.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Measures</title><p>To measure fertility, selected indicators i.e., age at first intercourse, mean number of children ever born (CEB), pregnancy wastage/termination and total fertility rate (number of children born per woman) are considered. Total fertility rate is calculated from birth history information collected from all women aged 15 - 49 years. In order to examine the fertility among HIV positive and negative women, total fertility rate is calculated for births occurring during 5-year period preceding the survey and 10-year age grouping is prepared to have enough number of births included in the analysis to produce reliable fertility estimates, especially for the HIV-positive women. For understanding the utilisation of maternal health services, the following variables have been considered i.e., Ante natal Care, Assistance during delivery and Post natal check up.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Statistical Analysis</title><p>Cross tabulations and chi-square tests are used to examine the differentials in the utilisation of maternal health care services and experience of miscarriages among women according to their HIV status. The NFHS stratified random sampling needs weight to derive parameters estimates, so the HIV sample weights have been used in the analysis, however un-weighted numbers are provided for the HIV-positive cases. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Sample Characteristics</title><p>The NFHS-3, 2005-2006, collected information from 124, 385 women age 15 - 49 years and 74, 369 men age 15 - 54 years. Of these, blood samples were collected from a representative sub-sample of 52,853 women and 52,804 men. The numbers of cases reported in the tables are weighted and hence they may differ marginally from the un-weighted figures mentioned above.</p><p>We have examined the percent distribution of women age 15 - 49 years by HIV sample status and wealth index. It is evident that a lower proportion of women belonging to the poorest quintile were tested for HIV compared with those who are not tested (15 percent compared with 20 percent). However, a higher proportion of women from the middle and richer quintiles were tested for HIV compared with those not tested (45 percent vs. 37 percent). These differences are lower if we apply the HIV sample weights. It is of interest to note that, a higher proportion of women belonging to the middle and richer quintiles are HIV-positive compared with other quintiles. For example, one-third of all HIV-positive women are from the richer wealth quintile.</p><p>The distributions of all women age 15 - 49 years by marital status according to HIV sample status and HIVtest result indicated that of women interviewed, 21 percent were never married and 75 percent were currently married. The remaining four percent were widowed, divorced or not living together with a man as if married. There is no substantial difference noticed in the distribution between those tested for HIV and those not tested for HIV with respect to marital status. However, as expected, among those tested for HIV, the marital status distribution among HIV-negative and HIV-positive women differ substantially. For example, less than four percent of the HIV-positive women are never married compared with 20 percent among those who are HIV-negative. Similarly, among those women who are not living together with a man as if married, a much higher proportion is HIV-positive (6 percent vs. 1 percent).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>The differentials in fertility among HIV-positive and HIV-negative women were examined by the mean number of children ever born (CEB). The results of the mean number of children ever born, and mean and median age at first intercourse by HIV status are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. From the table it is evident that the mean CEB is substantially higher among HIV-negative women compared with HIV-positive women (2.8 among HIV-negative women compared with 2.1 among HIV-positive women). The mean and median age at first intercourse is lower among HIV-positive women (mean 16.9 years and median 16.0 years) compared with HIV-negative women (mean 17.2 years and median 17.0 years).</p><p>The current pregnancy status of women age 15 - 49 years according to the current HIV and marital status is shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. The proportion of women who are currently pregnant is substantially lower among HIV-positive women compared with HIV-negative women irrespective of their marital status. For example, among all women aged 15 - 49 years tested for HIV, more than five percent of the HIV-negative women are currently pregnant compared with less than three percent among those HIV-positive. The differences are even higher for ever married and currently married women. Similarly, the proportion of women who had a live birth during the 5-year period preceding the survey is also lower among HIV-positive women compared with HIV-negative women (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Forty-two percent of the HIV-negative women currently married had at least one live birth during the 5-year period preceding the survey while the same proportion is only 20 percent among the HIV-positive women.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Characteristics of women age 15 - 49 years according to HIV-status, India, 2005-2006</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >HIV Status</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >All Sample</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Negative</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Positive</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Marital Status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Never married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Widowed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Divorced</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not living together</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No. of women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53,216</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53,331</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age at first intercourse (in years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of women<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41,156</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >108</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41,265</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean number of children ever born (CEB)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of women<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42,376</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >112</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42,488</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pregnant at the time of survey (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Given birth during past 5 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >All sample women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53,217</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53,332</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pregnant at the time of survey (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Given birth during past 5 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ever married women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42,376</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42,487</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pregnant at the time of survey (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Given birth during past 5 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Currently married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39,825</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39,901</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>*</sup>Number of women reported are different because of case elimination due to missing or inconsistent information on age at first intercourse.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the TFR for the 5-year period<sup>1</sup> preceding the survey for women age 15 - 44 years computed for different sub-groups of women based on whether tested for HIV or not, and, among those tested, by their HIV status. Ten-year age specific fertility rates are calculated and presented in the table due to the small number of HIV-positive women in the sample. There is no noticeable difference in pattern of ASFR between HIV-posi- tive and HIV-negative category of women though the rates were substantially lower for the HIV-positive category. The TFR among HIV-positive women (0.84) is substantially lower at one third of the TFR among HIV-negative women (2.78).</p><p>The proportion of HIV-positive pregnant women utilising ANC services is 92 percent compared to 78 percent among HIV-negative women, who had alive birth during the 5-year preceding the survey (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Seventy-nine percent of HIV-positive women have sought ANC services from a doctor compared to 50 percent among HIV-negative women. Similarly, the proportion of HIV-positive women delivering their babies in an institution is also much higher than among HIV-negative women (67 and 40 percent, respectively) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). The</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Total fertility rate (TFR) and age specific fertility rates for women age 15 - 44 years for the 5-year period preceding the survey by HIV-sample and HIV-status, India, 2005-2006</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Age</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >All women<sup>1</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >HIV-sample women<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HIV sample</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Non-HIV sample</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >HIV-negative</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >HIV-positive</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >HIV Sample</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Age Specific Fertility Rate (ASFR)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 - 24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.175</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.137</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.153</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.153</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.153</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 - 34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.115</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.098</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.105</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.107</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.026</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.107</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 - 44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.018</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TFR</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.77</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: 1. The rates for “all women” are calculated using the “national all women weight” and for the “HIV-sample women” the “national HIV sample weight” is used. 2. 10-year age groups are used to get a better estimate for the HIV-positive sample.</p><table-wrap-group id="3"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Pregnancy history, Delivery, ANC and PNC receiving among women age 15 - 49 years who had a live birth during past 5-years by HIV-status, India, 2005-2006</title></caption><table-wrap id="3_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Percent of women experienced pregnancy wastage/termination</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >HIV Status</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Negative</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Positive</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ever</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >During 5-year preceding the survey</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53,215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53,331</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Percent of institutional deliveries<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Assistance during delivery</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Any health professional<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ANM/nurse/midwife/LHV</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other health professional</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TBA<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative/friend</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other/none</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of births</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23,998</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24,025</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Antenatal care provider</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ANM/nurse/midwife/LHV</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other health personnel</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anganwadi/ICDS worker</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No antenatal care<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >During pregnancy had:</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Difficulty with daylight vision</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Difficulty with night blindness</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="3_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Convulsions not from fever</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >10.6</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >4.2</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >10.6</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leg, body or face swelling<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Excessive fatigue<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal bleeding</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Received postnatal care</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Less than 4 hours</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4-23 hours</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 - 2 days</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 - 41 days</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >DK/missing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No postnatal care<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Received with-in 42 days of delivery<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16,994</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17,017<sup>#</sup></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><p><sup>**</sup>Un-weighted number is 49; <sup>1</sup>Significantly different; Note: <sup>#</sup>The calculations refer to last live birth during past five years preceding the survey.</p><p>proportion assisted during delivery by a health professional is also higher among HIV-positive women compared with HIV-negative (71 percent among HIV-positive and 47 percent among HIV-negative).</p><p>The differential in the postnatal care coverage among HIV-negative and HIV-positive women is also substantial (42 percent and 61 percent, respectively). The differences are much higher for those receiving postnatal care within four hours of childbirth (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>The differentials in the complications during pregnancy indicate that prevalence of leg or body or face swelling and excessive fatigue is substantially higher among HIV-positive women compared with HIV-negative women (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). For example, 47 percent of the HIV-positive women who had a live birth during 5-year period preceding the survey reported leg, body or face swelling compared with 26 percent among HIV-negative. However, no significant differences were observed with respect to other problems during pregnancy such as difficulty in daylight vision, night blindness, etc.</p><p>The experience of the pregnancy termination/miss-carriage among women according to the current HIV status was also analyzed and the results are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. The results suggest that a higher proportion of HIV-positive women experience pregnancy termination/miss-carriage than HIV-negative women.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The results indicate that fertility among HIV-positive women is substantially lower than that of HIV-negative women. Though the TFR for the HIV-positive women is based on limited number of observations, a much lower TFR compared with HIV-negative women is indicative and conforms to earlier findings using population based data from Africa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref25">25</xref>] . Fertility is lower because of HIV infection or that women avoid pregnancy due to their HIV status. There is hardly any study carried out to understand the fertility pattern of HIV-positive and HIV-negative women in India or elsewhere using population based data, to further substantiate our claim.</p><p>Further, the antenatal care coverage, proportion delivering in an institutional facility and postnatal care among HIV-positive women are significantly higher than that of HIV-negative women. This highlights the fact that the chances of seeking antenatal care from a qualified health professional by HIV-positive women are higher than that of HIV-negative women [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56876-ref17">17</xref>] . This could be due to the linkages of ART services with the maternity care or due to the motivation and counselling offered to these women.</p><p>Similarly, a higher pregnancy termination among HIV positive women may either be due to HIV infection or due to women knowing their HIV status and hence terminating the pregnancy. This suggests the need to investigate the relationship between HIV status and fertility further with new population based data sets to establish the linkages in detail.</p><p>NFHS-3 data does not provide the opportunity to explore this due to limited HIV-positive cases. The few HIV-positive cases in the sample restrict the scope of attempting multivariate analyses. Therefore, in this paper, the analysis is limited to cross tabulations at national level, though state-wise differentials in the HIV prevalence are substantial.</p><p>These limitations notwithstanding, the current study is among the first, to our knowledge, that uses NFHS data to understand fertility and ANC service utilisation by HIV status. While more work is needed for confirmation, findings suggest that HIV positive women are more likely to use the ANC services. Hence, the effort of the government to integrate ART services with Maternity care services is likely to have yielded benefits.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>Thanks to Prof. RC Yadav for reviewing and providing comments that have improved this paper in a big way.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Vasudevan Jayachandran,Damodar Sahu,Subramanian Rajaram,Bo Pedersen, (2015) Does HIV Status Affect Utilization of Maternal Care Services among Women in India: An Analysis of NFHS 2005-2006. World Journal of AIDS,05,105-112. doi: 10.4236/wja.2015.52013</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.56876-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">United Nations (2014) The Millennium Development Goals. UN Millennium Development Goals Website. www.un.org/millenniumgoals</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International (2007) National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06. IIPS, Mumbai.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Government of India (2011). http://nrhm.gov.in/images/pdf/publication/Evaluation_study_of_NHM_in_7_States.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Montgomery, A.L., Ram, U., Kumar, R. and Jha, P., The Million Death Study Collaborators (2014) Maternal Mortality in India: Causes and Healthcare Service Use Based on a Nationally Representative Survey. PLoS ONE, 9, e83331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083331</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Singh, R.K. and Patra, S. (2013) Differentials in the Utilization of Antenatal Care Services in EAG States of India. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 28-32.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Say, L. and Raine, R. (2007) A Systematic Review of Inequalities in the Use of Maternal Health Care in Developing Countries: Examining the Scale of the Problem and the Importance of Context. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 85, 733-820. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.06.035659</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Navaneetham, K. and Dharmalingam, A. (2002) Utilization of Maternal Health Care Services in Southern India. Social Science &amp; Medicine, 55, 1849-1869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00313-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Singh, P.K., Kumar, C., Rai, R.K. and Singh, L. (2014) Factors Associated with Maternal Healthcare Services Utilization in Nine High Focus States in India: A Multilevel Analysis Based on 14385 Communities in 292 Districts. Health Policy Planning, 29, 542-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czt039</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smee, N., Shetty, A.K., Stranix-Chibanda, L., Chirenje, M., Chipato, T., Maldonado, Y. and Portillo, C. (2011) Factors Associated with Repeat Pregnancy among Women in an Area of High HIV Prevalence in Zimbabwe. Women’s Health Issues, 21, 222-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2010.11.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Taulo, F., Berry, M., Tsui, A., Makanani, B., Kafulafula, G., Li, Q., Nkhoma, C., Kumwenda, J.J., Kumwenda, N. and Taha, E.T. (2009) Fertility Intentions of HIV-1 Infected and Uninfected Women in Malawi: A Longitudinal Study. AIDS and Behavior, 13, 20-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-009-9547-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yeatman, S.E. (2009) The Impact of HIV Status and Perceived Status on Fertility Desires in Rural Malawi. AIDS and Behaviour, 13, 12-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-009-9534-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MacCarthy, S., Rasanathan, J.J., Ferguson, L. and Gruskin, S. (2012) The Pregnancy Decisions of HIV-Positive Women: The State of Knowledge and Way Forward. Reproductive Health Matters, 20, 119-140.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maier, M., Andia, I., Emenyonu, N., Guzman, D., Kaida, A., Pepper, L., Hogg, R. and Bangsberg, D.R. (2009) Antiretroviral Therapy Is Associated with Increased Fertility Desire, but Not Pregnancy or Live Birth, among HIV+ Women in an Early HIV Treatment Program in Rural Uganda. AIDS and Behaviour, 13, 28-37.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-008-9371-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Magadi, M.A. and Agwanda, A.O. (2010) Investigating the Association between HIV/AIDS and Recent Fertility Patterns in Kenya. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 335-344.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chi, B.K., Hanh, N.T., Rasch, V. and Gammeltoft, T. (2010) Induced Abortion among HIV-Positive Women in Northern Vietnam: Exploring Reproductive Dilemmas. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 12, S41-S54.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691050903056069</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Turan, J.M., Hatcher, A.H., Medema-Wijnveen, J., Onono, M., Miller, S., Bukusi, E.A., et al. (2012) The Role of HIV-Related Stigma in Utilization of Skilled Childbirth Services in Rural Kenya: A Prospective Mixed-Methods Study. PLoS Medicine, 9, e1001295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001295</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Glynn, J.R., Buvé, A., Cara&amp;euml;l, M., Musonda, R.M., Kahindo, M., Macauley, I., et al. (2001) Factors Influencing the Difference in HIV Prevalence between Antenatal Clinic and General Population in Sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS, 15, 1717-1725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200109070-00016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sahlu, I., Howe, C.J., Clark, M.A. and Marshall, B.D.L. (2014) HIV Status, Knowledge of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV and Antenatal Care Use among Ethiopian Women. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health, 4, 144-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2014.01.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Becker, M.L., Ramesh, B.M., Washington, R.G., Halli, S., Blanchard, J.F. and Moses, S. (2007) Prevalence and Determinants of HIV Infection in South India: A Heterogeneous, Rural Epidemic. AIDS, 21, 739-747.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e328012b885</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ramesh, B.M., Moses, S., Washington, R., Isac, S., Mohapatra, B., Mahagaonkar, S.B., et al. (2008) Determinants of HIV Prevalence among Female Sex Workers in Four South Indian States: Analysis of Cross-Sectional Surveys in Twenty-Three Districts. AIDS, 22, S35-S44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000343762.54831.5c</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brahmam, G.N.V., Kodavalla, V., Rajkumar, H., Rachakulla, H.K., Kallam, S., Myakala, S.P., et al. (2008) Sexual Practices, HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections among Self-Identified Men Who Have Sex with Men in Four High HIV Prevalence States of India. AIDS, 22, S45-S57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000343763.54831.15</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pandey, A., Benara, S.K., Roy, N., Sahu, D., Thomas, M., Joshi, D.K., et al. (2008) Risk Behaviour, Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV among Long-Distance Truck Drivers: A Cross-Sectional Survey along National Highways in India. AIDS, 22, S81-S90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000343766.00573.15</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Institute of Medical Statistics (NIMS) and National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) (2012) Technical Report India Estimates-2012.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kongnyuy, E.J. and Wiysonge, C.S. (2008) Association between Fertility and HIV Status: What Implications for HIV Estimates? BMC Public Health, 8, 309.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56876-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Durevall, D. and Lindskog, A. (2008) Uncovering the Effect of the HIV Epidemic on Fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Malawi. Working Papers in Economics No 318, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>