Skip to main content

Table 7 Absolute difference in measures to closest delivery facility calculated from compound compared to measures calculated from village centroid, n = 9,306 births

From: Methods to measure potential spatial access to delivery care in low- and middle-income countries: a case study in rural Ghana

Distance to closest delivery facility1

Mean (SD)

Median (IQR)

90%

95%

Range

Euclidean (km)

0.25 (0.24)

0.18 (0.08-0.34)

0.57

0.74

8.34E-06 - 2.64

Network distance (km)

0.38 (0.35)

0.28 (0.13-0.52)

0.84

1.11

0.000098 - 2.87

Mechanized network time (hr)

0.092 (0.10)

0.057 (0.025-0.12)

0.22

0.31

5.66E-07 - 0.74

Non-mechanized network time (hr)

0.13 (0.12)

0.09 (0.041-0.17)

0.30

0.39

0.000041 - 0.85

Mechanized raster time (hr)

0.17 (0.23)

0.16 (0.0042-0.18)

0.46

0.57

0 - 2.22

Non-mechanized raster time (hr)

0.20 (0.25)

0.13 (0.50-0.24)

0.48

0.69

0 - 2.42

Distance to closest CEmOC 2

Mean (SD)

Median (IQR)

90 %

95 %

Range

Euclidean (km)

0.30 (0.31)

0.20 (0.09-0.41)

0.69

0.96

0.000094 - 2.94

Network distance (km)

0.46 (0.48)

0.30 (0.13-0.63)

1.12

1.48

9.54E-06 - 3.21

Mechanized network time (hr)

0.083 (0.089)

0.055 (0.024-0.11)

0.20

0.26

8.94E-07 - 0.69

Non-mechanized network time (hr)

0.14 (0.14)

0.10 (0.013-0.19)

0.35

0.46

3.48E-05 - 0.94

Mechanized raster time (hr)

0.18 (0.25)

0.16 (0.005-0.18)

0.50

0.68

0 - 2.22

Non-mechanized raster time (hr)

0.23 (0.27)

0.15 (0.050-0.30)

0.58

0.79

0 - 2.04

  1. 1n=64 delivery facilities; 2n=8 CEmOC facilities.