| Literature DB >> 30991975 |
Emily B Atuheire1,2, Denis Nixon Opio3, Daniel Kadobera3, Alex R Ario3, Joseph K B Matovu4, Julie Harris5, Lilian Bulage3,6, Blandina Nakiganda7, Nazarius Mbona Tumwesigye4, Bao-Ping Zhu8, Frank Kaharuza6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cesarean section (CS) is an important intervention in complicated births when the safety of the mother or baby is compromised. Despite worldwide concerns about the overutilization of CS in recent years, many African women and their newborns still die because of limited or no access to CS services. We evaluated temporal and spatial trends in CS births in Uganda and modeled future trends to inform programming.Entities:
Keywords: Cesarean deliveries; Cesarean section rate; Trends; Uganda
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30991975 PMCID: PMC6469217 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2279-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Distribution of CS in all facilities providing total births data: Uganda, 2012 and 2016
| Health facilities in each category (n) and proportion providing CS (%) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Facility level | 2012 | 2016 |
| Comprehensive emergency obstetric care | ||
| Referral Hospital | 14 (100%) | 15 (100%) |
| General Hospital | 123 (80%) | 140 (76%) |
| Health center IV | 181 (32%) | 181 (72%) |
| Private Small Clinics | 76 (26%) | 227 (4.8%) |
| Basic emergency obstetric carea | ||
| Health Center III | 1091 (0.91%) | 1144 (2.6%) |
| Essential obstetric careb | ||
| Health Center II | 1976 (0%) | 2610 (0%) |
| All facilities | 3461 (5.8%) | 4317 (6.8%) |
CS Cesarean section
aSome Health center IIIs are providing CS in addition to their designated role as basic emergency obstetric care centers
bSome Health center IIs are conducting normal deliveries, though they are only intended to offer antenatal care services
N refers to the number of facilities in that category. Percentage refers to the proportion of all facilities in that category providing CS
Fig. 1Line graph showing temporal changes in CS rates in Uganda between 2012 and 2016. The graph shows the five year trend for CS rates at facility level for both total and live births, and population CS rates from 2012 to 2016
Changes in facility-based CS rates, by facility type and referral regions, Uganda, 2012–2016
| CS rates by level of care | CS rate 2012–2016 | Median CS rate | PRRa2012–2016a | PRR for CS2021b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health center IV | 4.0–8.0 | 5.8 | 1.18 (1.17–1.19) | 2.30 (2.28–2.32) |
| Gen. Hospital | 22–32 | 25 | 1.10 (1.09–1.10) | 1.58 (1.57–1.58) |
| Referral Hospitals | 20–25 | 23 | 1.08 (1.07–1.08) | 1.45 (1.44–1.45) |
| All CEmOCs | 19–22 | 19 | 1.09 (1.09–1.09) | 1.52 (1.51–1.52) |
| Health service referral regions | ||||
| Fort Portal | 11–26 | 13 | 1.25 (1.24–1.25) | 3.00 (2.97–3.03) |
| Mulago | 10–14 | 13 | 1.09 (1.09–1.10) | 1.55 (1.54–1.55) |
| Lira | 4.8–5.5 | 5.5 | 1.06 (1.05–1.08) | 1.36 (1.35–1.37) |
| Gulu | 4.5–6.0 | 5.5 | 1.06 (1.05–1.07) | 1.34 (1.33–1.34) |
| Hoima | 8.1–10 | 10 | 1.06 (1.05–1.07) | 1.32 (1.31–1.32) |
| Kabale | 11–13 | 12 | 1.06 (1.05–1.07) | 1.33 (1.32–1.33) |
| Mbarara | 11–15 | 14 | 1.05 (1.04–1.05) | 1.25 (1.24–1.25) |
| Jinja | 5.2–6.8 | 6.8 | 1.04 (1.03–1.04) | 1.19 (1.18–1.19) |
| Arua | 7.3–8.3 | 7.9 | 1.03 (1.02–1.04) | 1.17 (1.16–1.17) |
| Mbale | 5.7–6.8 | 6.1 | 1.03 (1.02–1.04) | 1.16 (1.15–1.16) |
| Mubende | 10–11 | 11 | 1.03 (1.02–1.04) | 1.15 (1.14–1.15) |
| Soroti | 4.7–4.5 | 4.6 | 0.97 (0.96–0.99) | 0.87 (0.86–0.87) |
| Moroto | 5.3–3.9 | 3.9 | 0.93 (0.92–0.95) | 1.48 (1.47–1.49) |
| Masaka | 17–11 | 14 | 0.93 (0.92–0.93) | 0.68 (0.66–0.70) |
| All Uganda | 9.1–11 | 9.6 | 1.06 (1.06–1.06) | 1.36 (1.35–1.36) |
CS Cesarean section, CEmOC Comprehensive emergency obstetric care, PRR Prevalence Rate Ratio
aEstimated PRR is equivalent to the annual rate of increase in the CS rate
bRatio of CS rate in 2021 to CS rate for the baseline period (2012 to 2016)
Population based CS rates by referral region, Uganda, 2012–2016
| Health service referral region | % change in population-based CS rates a | Median CS rate | Estimated PRR for 2012–2016 | Projected PRR for CS 2021b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fort Portal | 5.0–14 | 5.9 | 1.32 (1.31–1.33) | 3.88 (3.84–3.93) |
| Mbale | 1.6–3.7 | 2.9 | 1.21 (1.20–1.21) | 2.34 (2.32–2.36) |
| Kabale | 3.9–8.3 | 6.6 | 1.18 (1.17–1.19) | 2.23 (2.21–2.25) |
| Lira | 1.5–2.8 | 2.3 | 1.17 (1.16–1.19) | 2.60 (2.58–2.62) |
| Jinja | 1.7–3.6 | 3 | 1.16 (1.15–1.17) | 2.34 (2.32–2.36) |
| Mubende | 10–11 | 12 | 1.15 (1.14–1.17) | 2.04 (2.02–2.06) |
| Mbarara | 3.7–7.4 | 6 | 1.14 (1.14–1.15) | 1.95 (1.94–1.96) |
| Hoima | 2.9–5.0 | 4.5 | 1.14 (1.13–1.15) | 1.92 (1.91–1.93) |
| Arua | 2.8–4.6 | 4 | 1.14 (1.13–1.15) | 1.92 (1.91–1.93) |
| Mulago | 10–14 | 7 | 1.14 (1.13–1.14) | 1.90 (1.89–1.91) |
| Gulu | 2.1–3.7 | 3.3 | 1.12 (1.10–1.13) | 1.74 (1.73–1.75) |
| Moroto | 1.3–2.0 | 1.5 | 1.12 (1.10–1.15) | 1.79 (1.55–2.07) |
| Masaka | 5.2–6.4 | 6.4 | 1.07 (1.07–1.08) | 1.42 (1.41–1.42) |
| Soroti | 0.99–2.4 | 1.4 | 1.00 (0.99–1.01) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) |
| All Uganda | 3.2–5.9 | 4.6 | 1.16 (1.15–1.16) | 2.12 (2.11–2.12) |
CS Cesarean section, PRR Prevalence Rate Ratio
aCS rates for baseline year 2012 and latest year 2016
bRatio of CS rate in 2021 to CS rate for the baseline period (2012 to 2016)
Fig. 2Map of Uganda showing population based CS rates per District in 2012 (Map a) & 2016 (Map b). The color codes on each map represent the districts categorized by CS rates (range 0, 0.1-.99, 1-4.9, 5-9.9, and 10-20). We generated maps a and b of Uganda in Fig. 2 using Geographic Information Software (QGIS 2.14.8) to depict the spatial distribution of CS rates at district level during 2012 and 2016