Figures & data
Figure 3. Conceptual framework showing the influence of background and intermediate factors on institutional delivery
![Figure 3. Conceptual framework showing the influence of background and intermediate factors on institutional delivery](/cms/asset/d86ba362-4fbc-4fda-a2fc-c75f9b2f555d/zgha_a_2001145_f0003_oc.jpg)
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the study participants, LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16 (n = 112,518)
Figure 6. Distribution of institutional delivery (%) by public-private sector across LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16
![Figure 6. Distribution of institutional delivery (%) by public-private sector across LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16](/cms/asset/41646b3a-0a71-4dbb-9c4e-fafa39d11361/zgha_a_2001145_f0006_b.gif)
Table 2. Percentage distribution of institutional deliveries by selected characteristics across LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16
Table 3. Multivariate logistic regression models assessing socio-demographic and intermediate factors influencing institutional deliveries across LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16
Table 4. Percentage distribution of reasons for not delivering in a health facility across LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16
Table 5. Perceived distance to the health facility across LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16
Table 6. Interaction models (bivariate and multivariate) assessment to determine the impact of place of residence and distance to the health facility on institutional delivery utilization in LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16
Table 7. The percentage distribution (%) and multivariate logistic analysis assessing the likelihood of JSY scheme utilization by socio-demographic characteristics of women in LPS, NFHS-4 2015–16