Results
pain
REGRESSION, SECONDARY, COMPLICATIONS
The distribution of the respondents by socio-demographic characteristics and the study periods is presented in Table 
Quality Indicators of Intrapartum Care by Site  The distribution of the intrapartum care quality indicators is presented in Table Poisson regression was conducted to predict the count of intrapartum care scores(Table 
Poisson regression estimating the count of intrapartum care quality indicators between site and periodNote: IRR – Incidence Rate Ratio; aIRR – adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio; ATET – average treatment effect on the treated; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001The control variables that were significant in adjusted models included education levels and any complications during labour. Women who attained primary, and secondary education compared to those who attained no formal education had significant higher count of QI indicators. The incidence rate ratio for women who reported no complications was higher compared to those who had complications, both at baseline and intervention.Within site analysis (Table 
Poisson regression estimating the count of intrapartum care quality indicators within site over segmented periodNote: IRR – Incidence Rate Ratio; aIRR – adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio; ATET – average treatment effect on the treated; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01;The unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression results of each QI in the intervention compared to the control site during the baseline and intervention are presented in Table 
Unadjusted and adjusted Logistic regression of Intrapartum Care Quality Indicators in the intervention site versus control site(ref)Midwife/doctor vsdoctor onlyNote: Due to small values, analysis by the segmented 7 periods could not be done. Omitted because no in the intervention site was zero during the baseline. OR – Odds Ratio; aOR – adjusted Odds ratio; ATET – average treatment effect on the treated; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001Relative to the control site, bathing the baby for the first time less than 24 hours after birth was significantly less in the experiment site both at baseline and intervention period. The likelihood of being given verbal/or printed information on how to care for a baby was significantly lower in the experiment site, but only in the unadjusted bivariate model. Compared to the control site, the report of being well attended during labour was insignificantly lower in the experiment site at baseline, but during the intervention period, the odds became significantly higher even after controlling the effect of other factors (aOR 2.24 CI: 1.37–3.64).The odds of not having episiotomy were significantly higher in the experiment site than in the control site at baseline, it significantly decreased during the intervention period. Among the respondents who had an episiotomy, the odds of reporting that the cut was repaired promptly was 18.16 times more likely in the experiment than in the control site (aOR 18.16 CI:5.33–61.78). Among the 73% who reported severe pain during labour, the probability of reporting that she was happy with how the health worker helped to reduce the pain was insignificantly lower in the experiment than in the control site at baseline, but the odds significantly increased in the experiment site during the intervention period (aOR 4.40 CI:2.32–7.01).The ATET was significantly positive for vaginal versus caesarean section birth, well attended during labour, happy with how health workers helped to reduce pain during labour, and prompt repair of episiotomy. The ATET for lower likelihood of bathing a baby for the first time 24 hours plus was also significant.