| Literature DB >> 19489415 |
Kranti S Vora1, Dileep V Mavalankar, K V Ramani, Mudita Upadhyaya, Bharati Sharma, Sharad Iyengar, Vikram Gupta, Kirti Iyengar.
Abstract
Since the beginning of the Safe Motherhood Initiative, India has accounted for at least a quarter of maternal deaths reported globally. India's goal is to lower maternal mortality to less than 100 per 100,000 livebirths but that is still far away despite its programmatic efforts and rapid economic progress over the past two decades. Geographical vastness and sociocultural diversity mean that maternal mortality varies across the states, and uniform implementation of health-sector reforms is not possible. The case study analyzes the trends in maternal mortality nationally, the maternal healthcare-delivery system at different levels, and the implementation of national maternal health programmes, including recent innovative strategies. It identifies the causes for limited success in improving maternal health and suggests measures to rectify them. It recommends better reporting of maternal deaths and implementation of evidence-based, focused strategies along with effective monitoring for rapid progress. It also stresses the need for regulation of the private sector and encourages further public-private partnerships and policies, along with a strong political will and improved management capacity for improving maternal health.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19489415 PMCID: PMC2761784 DOI: 10.3329/jhpn.v27i2.3363
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Health Popul Nutr ISSN: 1606-0997 Impact factor: 2.000
Demographic and health indicators of India and her states (2)
| Indicator | India | Tamil Nadu | Gujarat | Rajasthan | Andhra Pradesh |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population (million) (Census 2001) | 1,028 | 62 | 51 | 57 | 76 |
| Decadal growth rate (1991-2001) | 21 | 12 | 23 | 28 | 15 |
| Population density per sq km (2001) | 324 | 478 | 258 | 165 | 275 |
| Birth rate (2005) | 24 | 16 | 24 | 29 | 19 |
| Death rate (2005) | 7.5 | 7.4 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.3 |
| Total fertility rate | 3.2 | 1.7 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 2.0 |
| Mean age (years) of effective marriage (2005) | 20 | 22 | 20 | 20 | 19 |
| Literacy rate: total (2001) | 65.3 | 73.4 | 69.1 | 60.4 | 60.4 |
| Male | 75.3 | 82.4 | 79.9 | 75.7 | 70.3 |
| Female | 54.1 | 64.4 | 57.8 | 43.8 | 53.7 |
| Sex ratio (no. of females per 1,000 males) | 933 | 987 | 920 | 921 | 978 |
| Life expectancy at birth—females (2005) | 66 | 69 | 69 | 67 | 68 |
| Infant mortality rate (2006) | 58 | 37 | 54 | 68 | 57 |
| Child mortality rate (2005) | 17 | 9 | 16 | 20 | 15 |
| Maternal mortality ratio as per SRS (2003) | 301 | 134 | 172 | 445 | 195 |
SRS=Sample Registration System
Estimates of maternal mortality ratio from different sources over the last 50 years (7)
| Source of data | Reference year | Maternal mortality ratio |
|---|---|---|
| NSS, 14th Round | 1957 | 1,287 |
| NSS, 16th Round | 1960 | 1,355 |
| NSS, 19th Round | 1963-1964 | 1,174 |
| SRS | 1972-1976 | 892 |
| SRS | 1977-1981 | 844 |
| SRS | 1982-1986 | 568 |
| PN Mari Bhat's estimate | 1982-1986 | 580 |
| World Health Report, 1999 | 1990 | 570 |
| NFHS 1 | 1992-1993 | 437 |
| 1997-1998 retrospective MMR surveys | 1997-1998 | 398 |
| SRS | 1997 | 407 |
| SRS | 1998 | 408 |
| NFHS 2 | 1998-1999 | 540 |
| SRS prospective household reports | 1999-2001 | 327 |
| World Health Report, 2005 | 2000 | 540 |
| SRS special survey of deaths using RHIME | 2001-2003 | 301 |
MMR=Maternal mortality ratio; NFHS=National Family Health Survey; NSS=National Sample Survey; RHIME=Routine, representative, resampled household interview of mortality with medical evaluation, a method used in SRS; SRS=Sample Registration System
Regional variation of estimated MMR per 100,000 livebirths (11-13)
| State | Source and year | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bhat | Bhat | IIHFW | SRS | SRS | SRS | |
| 1982-1986 | 1994 | 1998-1999 | 1998 | 2001 | 2003 | |
| Punjab | 346 | 289 | 351 | 244 | 144 | 138 |
| Haryana | 468 | 161 | 190 | 169 | ||
| Uttar Pradesh | 879 | 612 | 737 | 867 | 772 | 700 |
| Bihar | 714 | 651 | 549 | 486 | ||
| Rajasthan | 614 | 588 | 526 | 647 | 655 | 561 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 601 | 554 | 534 | 474 | ||
| Orissa | 552 | 297 | 367 | 295 | ||
| Assam | 709 | 636 | 762 | 587 | 403 | 474 |
| West Bengal | 451 | 251 | 175 | 148 | ||
| Maharashtra | 414 | 471 | 365 | 172 | 138 | 117 |
| Gujarat | 393 | 52 | 199 | 166 | ||
| Andhra Pradesh | 379 | 383 | 341 | 151 | 176 | 148 |
| Karnataka | 364 | 225 | 229 | 189 | ||
| Tamil Nadu | 284 | 89 | 115 | 88 | ||
| Kerala | 262 | 92 | 93 | 66 | ||
| India | 580 | 544 | 466 | 348 | 312 | 274 |
∗ Regional estimates covering more than one state—based on rural households;
† Estimates of MMR from a regression model based on the NFHS 2 data; IIHFW=Indian Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad; MMR=Maternal mortality ratio; NFHS=National Family Health Survey; SRS=Sample Registration System
Fig. 1.Causes of maternal deaths in India, 2003(14)
Maternal health indicators (%) in India (15)
| Indicator | NFHS 1 (1992-1993) | NFHS 2 (1998-1999) | NFHS 3 (2005-2006) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnant women with anaemia | NA | 50 | 58 |
| Three antenatal check-ups | 44 | 44 | 51 |
| Institutional deliveries | 26 | 34 | 39 |
| Deliveries conducted by health personnel | 33 | 42 | 48 |
| Mothers received postnatal care within 2 months of delivery | NA | 16 | 42 |
NA=Not available; NFHS=National Family Health Survey
Fig. 2.Access to maternal healthcare according to maternal education (NFHS 3, 2005-2006) (16)
Fig. 3.Access to maternal healthcare according to maternal wealth status (NFHS 3) (16)
Performance indicators (%) for maternal health services in India (17,18)
| Indicator | India | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| NFHS 1 (1993) | NFHS 2 (1999) | NFHS 3 (2006) | |
| Coverage of antenatal services | |||
| Tetanus toxoid injection (2 or more) | 54 | 67 | 76 |
| Completed 3 antenatal care visits | 44 | 44 | 51 |
| Received IFA tablets | 50 | 58 | 65 |
| Place of delivery | |||
| Institutional deliveries | 26 | 34 | 40 |
| Domiciliary deliveries | 74 | 66 | 60 |
| Institutional deliveries | |||
| Public | 15 | 16 | 18 |
| NGO/trust | NA | 0.7 | 0.4 |
| Private | 11 | 17 | 20 |
| Type of deliveries | |||
| Vaginal deliveries | 97 | 93 | 91 |
| Caesarean sections | 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Assistance during delivery | |||
| Doctor | 22 | 30 | 35 |
| ANM/nurse/midwife/LHV | 13 | 11 | 11 |
| Other health professionals | NA | 1 | 1 |
| Dai (TBA) | 35 | 35 | 37 |
| Other | 30 | 23 | 16 |
ANM=Auxiliary Nurse Midwife; IFA=Iron-folic acid; LHV=Lady Health Visitor; NA=Not available; NHFS=National Family Health Survey; NGO=Non-governmental organization; TBA=Traditional birth attendant
Details of public-health facilities, 2006 (19-21)
| Healthcare institution | Population norms | Level | No. in India (2007) | No. in India (2006) | Highest medical services provider |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical college hospital | 5-8 million | Apex | 242 | 242 | Super specialists |
| District hospital | 2-3 million | III | 370 | 370 | Specialists, including obstetrician |
| First Referral Unit | 3,00,000-5,00,000 | II | 1,762 | 1,926 | Obstetrician |
| Community Health Centre | 1,00,000-3,00,000 | II | 4,045 | 3,910 | Medical officer/specialists |
| Primary Health Centre | 30,000 | I | 22,370 | 22,669 | Medical officer, staff nurse |
| Subcentre | 5,000 | I | 145,272 | 144,988 | Auxiliary Nurse Midwife |
Infrastructure and human resources available (%) in India for maternal healthcare, 2006 (22,23)
| Infrastructure | Subcentre | PHC | CHC | FRU | DH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Own building | 45.2 | 69 | 84 | 94.7 | 97 |
| Electricity | 43.1 | 66.4 | 91.8 | 94.3 | 96.7 |
| Operating theatre | NA | NA | 87.6 | 93.7 | 99.5 |
| Labour room | NA | 48.4 | 31.0 | 33.3 | 44.4 |
| Telephone | NA | NA | 62.2 | 74.8 | 96.7 |
| Vehicle on road | NA | NA | 57.4 | 56.8 | 89.9 |
| Linkage with district blood-bank | NA | NA | 15.8 | 27.2 | 67.5 |
| Quarters for RMO | NA | NA | 44.0 | 42.2 | 47.1 |
| Obstetrician | NA | NA | 51 | 71 | 90.0 |
| Anaesthesiologist | NA | NA | 37 | 69 | 83.0 |
| Paediatrician | NA | NA | 54 | 73 | 90.0 |
| Staff nurse | NA | NA | 83 | 88 | 90.0 |
∗For CHC, FRU, and DH, information is available for separate aseptic labour room; CHC=Community Health Centre; DH=Department of Health; FRU=First Referral Unit; NA=Not available; PHC=Primary Health Centre; RMO=Registered Medical Officer
Key elements of maternal health component of CSSM and RCH 1 and issues in implementation (29,30)
| Key elements | CSSM | RCH 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Duration: 1992-1996 | Duration: 1997-2004 | |
| Strategies | Upgrade existing CHCs to FRUs for providing EmOC Convert village-level immunization to mother and child-protection sessions Train TBAs and upgradation of skills of existing staff Provide ANMs with subcentre medicine-kit Educate people about the programme Provide equipment/supplies for safe motherhood and neonatal care at the CHC level | Make FRUs functional by providing contractual staff, building renovation Increase availability of specialists Ensure availability of blood at FRUs Provide funds given to local governing bodies to provide emergency transport facilities Improve quality of services Provide additional honoraria to PHC and CHC staff for attending deliveries after office hours Engage additional staff nurse for selected PHCs for 24 hours x 7-day delivery services Provide mode of transportation for ANMs Provide fixed drug and equipment-kit at each level as given in CSSM |
| Service package | Immunization of pregnant women Prevention and treatment of anaemia Antenatal care and early identification of maternal complications Delivery by trained personnel (including trained traditional birth attendants) Promoting institutional delivery Management of obstetric emergencies Birth-spacing | Essential obstetric care EmOC 24-hour deliveries at PHC and CHC Referral transport Blood storage at FRUs Access to medical termination of pregnancy |
| Issues in implementation | ||
| Training | Short-term (6 days) training of MOs with little focus on maternal health Long-term training for EmOC skill-building of general doctors was not implemented Supplies and infrastructure improvement did not link with training | Training load could not be completed A few medical officers trained in short course for anaesthesia and resuscitation for EmOC which was not enough for skill-building Training modules developed along with National Institute of Health and Family Welfare but practical training too short (2 weeks) for skills development |
| Supplies | Delayed supply of high-quality useful equipment Low use Maintenance system not developed | No flexibility for local purchase of required supplies Lack of supplies and equipment No maintenance contracts |
| Staffing | Dearth of key staff/specialists at FRUs—making them dysfunctional No additional staff recruited General doctors and ANM/nurses lacked skills in EmOC | Private anaesthetist and obstetricians not available in remote areas on contract The role of ANMs and staff nurse hired on contract was not clear and insecurity of job |
| IEC and community participation | Limited scope and coverage of programme Limited to essential obstetric care | Communication and awareness about the programme preceded improvement in service-delivery which led to dissatisfaction with the system |
| Service-delivery | Safe motherhood component was partially implemented or remained weak Access to blood at FRUs was difficult because of high standards Proposed maternal mortality review committees not established | Inadequate linkages between components, such as family planning, maternal health, child health, and RTI/STD Haphazard implementation, e.g. some FRUs got additional staff while others got renovated; some villages received the transport-money; and others did not Transport-money remained unused Contractual staff did not provide round-the-clock services No efforts towards improving quality of services Process for licensing blood-storage unit at FRUs too long |
| Supervision, monitoring, and evaluation | Data not available for all components of the service package Safe motherhood focused only on TT coverage and IFA distribution Functionality of FRUs not monitored, no service statistics for FRUs collected Modified the existing management information system, but more focused on immunization and family planning | Independent district-level household surveys commissioned to assess RCH services A few components were closely monitored; anecdotal evidence indicates large-scale inflation of service statistics by field functionaries Functionality of FRUs continued to be unmonitored Systematic comprehensive evaluation not done |
ANM=Auxilliary Nurse Midwife; CHC=Community Health Centre; CSSM=Child Survival and Safe Motherhood; EmOC=Emergency obstetric care; FRUs=First Referral Units; IEC=Information, education, and communication; IFA=Iron-folic acid; MOs=Medical officers; PHC=Primary Health Centre; RCH=Reproductive and Child Health; RTI=Reproductive tract infection; STD=Sexually transmitted disease; TBAs=Traditional birth attendants; TT=Tetanus toxoid