Examining inequalities in access to delivery by caesarean section in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Maternal deaths are far too common in Nigeria, and this is in part due to lack of access to lifesaving emergency obstetric care, especially among women in the poorest strata in Nigeria. Data on the extent of inequality in access to such lifesaving intervention could convince policymakers in developing an appropriate intervention. This study examines inequality in access to births by caesarean section in Nigeria.
METHODS: Data for 20,468 women who gave birth in the five years preceding 2013 Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) were used for this study. Inequality in caesarean delivery was assessed using the concentration curve and multiple logistic regression models.
RESULTS: There was a high concentration in the utilisation of caesarean section among the women in the relatively high wealth quintile. Overall, delivery by caesarean section was 2.1%, but the rate was highest among women who had higher education and belonged to the richest wealth quintile (13.6%) and lowest among women without formal education and who belonged to the poorest wealth quintile (0.4%). Belonging to the poorest wealth quintile and having no formal education were associated with lower odds of having delivery by caesarean section.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, women in the richest households are within the WHO's recommended level of 10-15% for caesarean birth utilisation, but women in the poorest households are so far away from the recommended rate. Equity in healthcare is still a promise, its realisation will entail making care available to those in need not only those who can afford it.

Introduction

Maternal mortality has remained high, especially in low- and middle-income countries, in spite of substantial progress recorded in the fight to improve maternal health outcomes [1]. It is estimated that about a quarter of a million women died due to pregnancy and childbirth-related complications in 2013 alone [1]. What is more, the risk of adverse maternal outcomes is not uniformly distributed because the largest proportions are concentrated in the most vulnerable and deprived groups [2]. Globally, the possibilities of surviving and living a healthy life are closely related to the socioeconomic background of individuals and families, neighbourhoods and communities, and these possibilities are reflected in a substantial and even increasing inequalities in health within countries [3]. Thus, a generalised picture of the reduction or otherwise of maternal morbidity and mortality will be misleading because of the huge disparities that exist between the poorest and the richest households in access to health care, especially for women.

Across national boundaries, the effects of inequitable access to health are quite staggering as the magnitude of morbidities and deaths emanating from resource-poor countries are overwhelmingly higher than those in resource-rich nations [4]. The disparity in access to health is even more conspicuous when analysed within each country, especially in the resource-constrained countries. The steepness of this disparity calls to question and challenges the notion of equitable access to health care that national governments uniformly claim to be implementing. Generally, there is sufficient evidence suggesting that there is a link between inequitable access to health care and inequitable distribution of illness [5]. Closing the wide gap between illness distribution and access to health for various categories of citizens, especially the most vulnerable, would increase health equity and improve the overall health of a nation. Research evidence already suggests that access to, quality and outcomes from, health care are inequitable. In fact, it has been shown that the categories of people with the greatest health challenges actually receive the lowest level of services [5]. So is equitable access to health care only a myth?

Most maternal deaths are avoidable with the use of quality obstetric services; however, many women continue to die due to lack of access to life-saving services. Increasing skilled attendance at birth, backed-up by access to antenatal care and referral-level facilities, was identified as the critical strategy to achieve the required reduction in maternal mortality [6]. Women in underserved communities lack access to crucial maternal health care services [7, 8]. For example, only 36% of births are attended by skilled health workers in Nigeria [9]. Moreover, Nigeria accounts for over 19% of global maternal deaths with an estimated 58,000 maternal deaths every year [1].

In this study, access to delivery by caesarean section (CS) is examined as the primary indicator to demonstrate inequitable access to maternal health services in Nigeria by drawing on nationally-representative data from 2013 Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). Caesarean section, as an emergency obstetric procedure, can save the lives of many women and children if used in appropriate conditions [10]; it saves women who otherwise would have to endure prolonged labour and the risk of vagina fistula and offers a lifesaving opportunity for many women during childbirth. Interestingly, reports from around the world suggest that there are significant increases in the proportion of women receiving this obstetric care [11-14]. However, it is unclear whether this is true for women in the poorest strata, especially in Nigeria. A caesarean section utilisation of 10–15% at the population level is recommended as beneficial to the health of women as it reduces neonatal and maternal mortality [10, 15]. Limited access to caesarean section is linked with an increase in maternal mortality and neonatal mortality [16, 17]. Significantly, a study has shown that the caesarean section rate of less than 1% among women in the lowest wealth index contributes about 80,000 of maternal deaths per year in sub-Saharan Africa [18]. While women in the richest households are overusing caesarean section because they find it more convenient than to endure the pain of vaginal delivery and can afford the costs, women in the poorest households are underutilising CS because they are too poor to pay [19].

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to make health care universally accessible to all. Thus, there is no universal access to health care if the status quo remains, whereby women in the rich population groups over-utilise healthcare while women in the poorest strata lack access to the same care. The Nigeria government, recognising the disparity in health care utilisation, have implemented several maternal and child health care interventions aimed at making healthcare universally accessible for all pregnant women and children under the age of five as a late push to achieve the Millennium Development Goals [20]. For example, the Midwives Service Scheme, which engaged newly graduated, unemployed, and retired midwives to work temporarily in rural areas, was introduced throughout the country in 2009 to bolster access to maternal health care services [21]. Also, user fee exemption for maternal health care services was introduced as part of the federal government subsidy reinvestment programme in 2011. Besides these programmes, each state government introduced maternal health policies aimed at increasing access to care, especially for the poor [20]. Given this rapid scale-up of maternal health interventions in Nigeria, it is expected that poor women will have equitable access to care, including caesarean section delivery. However, the level of utilisation of birth by caesarean section among women in the poorest strata is unclear. As such, it is unknown whether births by caesarean section are a function of social status. This study, therefore, assesses the level of access to birth by caesarean section across the main socioeconomic status indicators such as education and wealth status.

Methods

Study population and data source

Data for this study are derived from the 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS). The survey is a nationally representative cross-sectional household survey conducted between February and June 2013, in which a range of detailed demographic and health-related information were collected. The dataset used in this study was the women individual recode, which contains information from the women’s questionnaire in addition to household information. Data for 20,468 women who had children in the five years preceding the survey were extracted and analysed in this study.

Dependent variable

The dependent variable of this study is delivery by caesarean section among women of reproductive age who gave birth the five years preceding the survey. Information on caesarean delivery was elicited by asking each woman if their index child was delivered by caesarean sections. Women's’ responses were either “yes” or”no”.

Independent variables

The main independent variables were wealth index and education level. Wealth index was grouped into five categories from poorest to richest. Wealth index in the NDHS is computed using household characteristics, household assets, and possession of durable goods as well as access to clean water and improved sanitation. Using Principal component analysis (PCA), the wealth variable index was computed and the resulting composite score used to create five categories. Level of education was measured by asking women the highest level of education they completed. The responses were categorised as ‘no formal’, ‘primary’, ‘secondary’ and ‘higher education’.

Covariates

Two main categories of covariates were included in the statistical modelling. The first is the demographic covariates, which include age, marital status, literacy level, membership of health insurance scheme, presence of co-wife, husband’s level of education, and relationship to the household head. The demographic controls are important, given the fact that they are key determinants of health outcomes [22]. Age was grouped into six categories with mostly five years’ interval, except for the age group 40–49 year. Marital status was categorised as never married, currently married and previously married. Membership of health insurance scheme was a categorical variable with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.

The second category is the geographical covariates. Place of residence is one of the geographical covariates and is an important determinant of health care utilisation [20]. Place of residence was categorised into rural and urban. Health outcomes are skewed according to the geopolitical zones in Nigeria [9]. As such, the geopolitical zones were added as a covariate. Women are categorised according to the geopolitical zones where they reside.

Data analysis

In this study, the concentration curve was used to assess socio-economic inequality in caesarean delivery in Nigeria. Absolute concentration index of inequality for caesarean delivery was also estimated. The health concentration index, first developed by Nanak Kakwani in 1977 [23], which is directly related to the concentration curve, is used to quantify the degree of socioeconomic-related inequality in a health variable. In our analysis, the formula for estimation of concentration index for grouped data was used and is as follows;

In the formula, p is the cumulative percentage of the sample ranked by economic status in group t, and Lt is the corresponding concentration curve ordinate. Theoretically, the maximum value of the concentration index varies between -1 and +1, but it is not limited to the range of [–1, 1] if the health variable of interest takes negative or positive values. Therefore, the health outcome should be such that it is restricted to positive values [23]. The concentration index of 0 indicates no inequality.

Also, the outcome variable was cross-tabulated according to women’s wealth status by maternal background characteristics. Multiple logistic regression models were estimated to understand the association between delivery by caesarean section, wealth index, and education. The first model is the baseline model, which examined the independent net effect of wealth status and education on delivery by CS. The second model included demographic covariates as control variables. In the third model, geographical covariates were further added as control variables. Interpretations of findings were based on odds ratios (OR), with OR >1 indicating a higher risk, OR < 1 indicating lower risk and OR = 1 showing no risk difference. The alpha value of 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, and confidence interval (CI) of 95% was estimated. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 24.0) was used to perform the analysis. Sampling weight was applied for all univariate and bivariate analyses to account for the complex sampling adopted in the study.

Ethical consideration

The Nigeria Health Research Ethics Committee approved the initial survey (NHREC), and all procedures were approved by the ICF Macro (Calverton, Maryland), and individual informed consent was obtained from respondents at the start of the interviews. Written permission to use the data was obtained from Measure DHS, and since these are anonymous public data with no identifiable information of respondents, additional ethical approval was not required. The dataset is publicly available on the DHS website (https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm).

Results

Descriptive findings

Table 1 presents a summary of the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. A majority of the women were Muslims (60.8%), married (94.8%), and did not have health insurance cover (98.4%).

Table 1

Weighted distribution of women by socio-demographic, maternal and obstetric outcome.

Characteristics	n	%
Age
15–19	1323	6.5
20–24	4009	19.6
25–29	5376	26.3
30–34	4247	20.7
35–39	3173	15.5
40–49	2340	11.4
Marital status
Never married	453	2.2
Currently married	19397	94.8
Previously married	617	3.0
Religion
Christian	7713	37.7
Muslim	12436	60.8
others	318	1.6
Presence of co-wife
No	13067	64.0
Yes	7355	36.0
Relationship to household head
Head	1373	6.7
Wife	17052	83.3
Others	2042	10.0
Education
No formal	9794	47.9
Primary	3915	19.1
Secondary	5475	26.7
Higher	1283	6.3
Husbands education
No formal	7785	39.3
Primary	3661	18.5
Secondary	5806	29.3
Higher	2566	12.9
Wealth quintile
Poorest	4699	23.0
Poor	4588	22.4
Middle	3902	19.1
Rich	3674	18.0
Richest	3604	17.6
Health insurance coverage
No	20063	98.4
Yes	321	1.6
Place of residence
Urban	7278	35.6
Rural	13189	64.4
Parity
1	3670	17.9
2	3361	16.4
3	3054	14.9
4	2732	13.3
5+	7650	37.4
Literacy
No	11817	58.3
Yes	8465	41.7

The concentration index for caesarean delivery was a high positive value (C = 0.4855) (Table 2) with the concentration curve lying below the line of equality indicating a high concentration in the utilisation of caesarean section among the women in the relatively high wealth quintile (i.e. women in richest, richer, and middle wealth quintile) (Fig 1). If everyone, irrespective of their wealth quintiles, had the same levels of CS utilisation, the concentration curves would have been aligned with the line of equality (45-degree line).

Table 2

Caesarean delivery and concentration index for inequality among women in Nigeria.

Wealth group	No. of women 15–49 years	Relative % Population women 15–49 years	Cumulative % Population women 15–49 years	No. of CS	Relative % CS	Cumulative % CS	Conc. Index (C)
			0%			0%
Poorest	4699	23%	23%	25	5%	5%	0.0088
Poor	4588	22%	45%	43	9%	14%	0.0293
Middle	3902	19%	64%	60	12%	26%	0.0721
Rich	3674	18%	82%	90	19%	45%	0.3754
Richest	3604	18%	100%	268	55%	100%	0.0000
Total	20467			486			0.4855

Fig 1

Concentration curve for cumulative caesarean delivery by wealth quintile in Nigeria.

The prevalence of caesarean delivery was 2.1% but was higher among women in the richest wealth category (7.6%) compared to women in the middle (1.5%), poor (0.9%) and poorest (0.5%) wealth categories. Among women in the richest wealth category, delivery by caesarean section was much lower among those who had lower level of education than those who had a higher educational qualification (Table 3). Having health insurance cover doubled the proportion for caesarean delivery across wealth status except for those in the poorer wealth category.

Table 3

Distribution of Caesarean section by wealth status and selected characteristics.

Characteristics	Caesarean section
	Poorest wealth group	Poor wealth group	Middle wealth group	Rich wealth group	Richest wealth group
	%	%	%	%	%
Age
15–19	1.1	1.7	0.8	1.3	5.4
20–24	0.2	1.3	2.0	2.0	4.2
25–29	0.6	0.6	1.4	2.4	6.8
30–34	0.5	0.6	1.3	4.0	6.7
35–39	0.4	0.6	1.4	1.9	12.2
40–49	0.5	1.1	2.1	2.1	8.6
Marital status
Never married	3.8	3.7	2.0	3.6	5.1
Currently married	0.5	0.9	1.5	2.4	7.5
Previously married	0.0	2.0	1.5	1.7	12.5
Religion
Christian	1.8	2.1	2.2	3.5	9.2
Muslim	0.4	0.5	0.9	1.4	4.3
Others	0.0	0.0	5.6	0.0	7.4
Presence of co-wife
No	0.5	1.0	1.6	2.6	8.0
Yes	0.5	0.9	1.4	2.2	5.9
Relationship to household head
Head	0.0	1.6	0.6	3.4	8.4
Wife	0.4	0.7	1.4	2.3	7.4
Others	1.8	2.8	2.7	2.9	8.4
Education
No formal	0.4	0.6	0.6	0.8	2.4
Primary	1.2	1.3	2.2	2.4	2.8
Secondary	2.0	2.4	2.2	2.8	6.1
Higher	0.0	12.5	1.6	6.1	13.6
Husbands education
No formal	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.7	1.1
Primary	0.3	1.2	1.2	2.2	3.0
Secondary	2.1	1.4	2.2	2.4	6.5
Higher	2.9	1.3	2.7	4.0	10.9
Parity
1	1.1	2.7	3.1	3.4	10.6
2	0.3	0.4	1.4	3.0	6.7
3	0.3	0.4	1.4	3.0	6.7
4	0.5	0.9	0.6	3.1	6.4
5+	0.4	0.5	0.8	1.7	6.0
Health insurance coverage
No	0.5	0.9	1.5	2.4	7.1
Yes	0.0	0.0	4.3	6.8	14.3
Place of residence
Urban	1.7	1.8	1.7	2.6	7.8
Rural	0.5	0.8	1.5	2.4	5.9
Literacy
No	0.5	0.8	1.1	1.3	1.3
Yes	1.7	1.5	2.2	3.0	8.2
Total	0.5	0.9	1.5	2.5	7.6

Multivariate findings

Three models were fitted to examine inequality in access to birth by caesarean section. The first model is the baseline model, which is used to examine the net effect of wealth index and educational status on having a birth by caesarean section. The results of Model 1 indicate that wealth index and education status were positively and significantly associated with having a birth by caesarean section. In the second model, demographic controls were included to observe how the effect of education and wealth on delivery by caesarean section changes. The results show that the magnitude and direction of the effect persist despite adding the demographic controls. The third model included geographical covariates. The magnitude of the effect of education and wealth on birth by caesarean section slightly reduces, but the direction of the effect remains the same. Delivery by caesarean section was significantly less likely to occur among women in the poorest, poor, middle wealth categories compared with those in the wealthiest category, as shown in the three models in Table 4. Women who had no formal education were less likely to undergo caesarean section compared to women who had higher education.

Table 4

Logistic models for delivery by caesarean section.

Factors		Delivery by caesarean section
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Wealth index
Poorest	0.25 (0.14, 0.39)***	0.41 (0.24, 0.97)**	0.58 (0.28, 0.92)*
Poor	0.33 (0.21, 0.45)***	0.44 (0.34, 0.92)***	0.6 (0.38, 0.95)*
Middle	0.40 (0.26, 0.48)***	0.46 (0.35, 0.78)***	0.58 (0.38, 0.91)**
Rich	0.44 (0.34, 0.57)***	0.52 (0.38, 0.75)***	0.58 (0.39, 0.80)***
Richest	1	1	1
Education
No formal	0.11 (0.09, 0.20)***	0.42 (0.26, 0.95)*	0.48 (0.29, 1.48)*
Primary	0.29 (0.24, 0.46)***	0.66 (0.43, 1.28)	0.67 (0.44, 1.31)
Secondary	0.44 (0.39, 0.62)***	0.68 (0.57, 0.75)**	0.68 (0.57, 0.82)**
Higher	1	1	1
Husbands education
No formal		0.37 (0.18, 0.65)***	0.38 (0.17, 0.61)***
Primary		0.47 (0.30, 0.76)***	0.44 (0.2, 0.69)***
Secondary		0.76 (0.53, 0.97)*	0.74 (0.50, 0.91)*
Higher		1	1
Health insurance coverage
No		0.62 (0.39, 0.80)*	0.62 (0.31, 0.76)*
Yes		1	1
Age
15–19		0.29 (0.13, 0.49)***	0.32 (0.12, 0.53)**
20–24		0.25 (0.13, 0.32)***	0.27 (0.11, 0.37)***
25–29		0.38 (0.22, 0.47)***	0.39 (0.20, 0.53)***
30–34		0.53 (0.35, 0.70)**	0.54 (0.29, 0.73)**
35–39		0.92 (0.62, 1.22)	0.93 (0.62, 1.42)
40–49		1	1
Religion
Christian		0.93 (0.54, 5.63)	0.93(0.36, 4.04)
Muslim		0.55 (0.38, 3.93)	0.61(0.28, 3.21)
Others		1	1
Relationship to household head
Head		0.80 (0.56, 1.30)	0.8 (0.49, 1.37)
Wife		0.84 (0.68, 1.28)	0.88 (0.73, 1.58)
Others		1	1
Marital status
Never married		-
Currently married		0.95 (0.56, 1.79)	0.96 (0.378, 1.479)
Previously married		1	1(,)
Parity
1		4.29 (3.66, 7.64)***	4.10 (3.471, 9.212)***
2		1.97 (1.78, 3.60)***	1.90 (1.752, 4.722)**
3		2.00 (1.48, 2.94) ***	1.96 (1.56, 4.082)***
4		1.56 (0.98, 2.01)*	1.53 (0.989, 2.584)*
5+		1	1
Literacy
No		0.98 (0.53, 1.28)	0.95 (0.504, 1.606)
Yes		1	1
Presence of co-wife
No		0.91 (0.72, 1.24)	0.88 (0.819, 1.704)
Yes		1	1
Place of residence
Urban			1.40(0.858, 1.589)*
Rural			1
Region
North-central			0.94 (0.547, 1.15)
North-east			0.92 (0.583, 1.547)
North-west			0.59 (0.387, 1.106)*
South-east			1.02 (0.856, 1.903)
South-south			1.14 (0.722, 1.538)
South-west			1

***P-value less than 0.001

*P-value less than 0.05

Discussion

This study examined inequality in access to emergency obstetric care, specifically delivery by caesarean section in Nigeria. The findings show a significant level of inequality in access to child delivery by caesarean section with a high concentration of use among women of higher socio-economic status. High absolute inequality in birth by caesarean section has been observed in other countries in Africa (Boatin et al., 2018). The study found that women in the poorest households had less than 1% level of use of CS births. Caesarean section rate of less than 1% among women in the lowest wealth index has been said to contribute to about 80,000 maternal deaths per year in sub-Saharan Africa [18]. The pattern revealed in the current study indicates low access to birth by caesarean section. Poor access to delivery by caesarean section remains mainly an issue among the economically and the socially deprived, which has serious implications for reducing maternal mortality and morbidity in the country. Nigeria remains a largely unequal society with the majority of the population living in poverty [24]. Access to health care, especially birth by caesarean section, remains elusive for many women in the poorest households.

The drivers of inequality in access to birth by caesarean section in Nigeria are two-fold, demand and supply related factors. Illiteracy, lack of formal education and poverty are demand-related factors that influence access to lifesaving interventions such as caesarean section, thus, resulting in an increased level of maternal mortality. Women in the richest quintile who are educated up to post-secondary school level had a caesarean section rate above 13%, which is within the WHO’s recommended level of ideal rate of birth by caesarean section [10]. However, women in the poorest quintile who had no formal education had a caesarean section rate of 0.4%. Even among women in the richest wealth category who are uneducated, the level of birth by caesarean section is below 10%. Being poor does not immune women from experiencing birth complications, rather the intersectionality of poverty and poor access to antenatal care may increase the risks of complications requiring an emergency caesarean section. Having the resources to access emergency obstetric interventions, such as CS promptly, could mean that the lives of women and neonates are saved.

Research shows that the cost of CS is one of the main reasons women refuse birth by CS against competent medical advice [25]. Women in the poorest stratum are unable to afford the cost of CS, and instead, as soon as these women become pregnant, they and their family members begin a series of fasting and prayers for God to intervene and ensure they experience vaginal delivery even if it means they have to endure prolonged labour. Some studies have established that ability to pay for CS is one of the factors associated with having a caesarean birth [26-28] which suggests that providers may see caesarean sections as a money-making mechanism and mainly targeted at clients who can afford the service. As such, some of the elective caesarean sections are not necessary. Moreover, proof of payment or ability to pay is required for the procedure to commence, creating a problem for women in the low-income category. In some circumstances, the emergency CS is provided, but women are detained in the hospital until they have cleared the bill [29]. Caesarean section also increases the length of hospital stay after delivery, considering the longer time for recovery from the surgery compared to vaginal delivery [30]. Longer stays in the hospital increases the overall cost of delivery–issues that women grapple with when deciding on accepting a recommendation to undergo an emergency CS [30].

The cost of birth by caesarean section in Nigeria and the lack of social and financial protection means that this life-saving intervention is unavailable to poor women. The National Health Insurance Scheme was established since 2005 to provide social and financial risk protection by reducing the cost of health care and providing equitable access to basic health services [31]. However, health insurance coverage in Nigeria is less than two percent, with most subscribers being educated and working-class women, and almost all women in the lowest wealth cluster having no insurance covers. Expanding access to the national health insurance could be one of the strategies to address inequity in delivery by caesarean section in the country.

Also, having a higher education could mean that women recognise the importance of having a caesarean birth when medically indicated. There is evidence that some women refuse or delay the decision to have a delivery by caesarean section [32] in the hope that they will eventually have a vaginal birth, which contributes to poor outcomes of caesarean deliveries in sub-Saharan Africa [33]. Health literacy is generally higher among women who have higher education compared to those without formal education [34-36]. Studies have established that women, especially the poor and uneducated, are afraid of CS, thus refusing it and rather seeking spiritual intervention to avoid it in Nigeria [37, 38]. Women take pride in natural delivery and attribute birth complications requiring CS to “evil forces”, which must be combated by prayers [39]. Our study shows that the rate of caesarean birth was low among women in the highest wealth index who are uneducated, further highlighting the importance of education on maternal health outcomes. Other reasons why women may not accept CS include the fear of resulting pains, scars and the risk of infections. In Nigeria, it is commonplace for mothers and mother-laws to spend time with their daughters after delivery to perform hotpresses on the stomach to ensure the woman’s stomach does not become distended as a result of pregnancy and childbirth. Given the intersection of wealth and education and its importance to maternal health outcomes, there is a need for a robust national strategy on women empowerment.

The reasons for inequality in delivery by caesarean section are, however, not limited to demand-related factors but are also supply-related. Use of emergency caesarean section depends on the availability of services that are of sufficient quality. In many rural settings in Nigeria, there are no health facilities [40], and in areas where they exist, the quality of services available is poor, with a lack of consistent supplies, equipment and human resources, especially doctors [21, 41–45]. The problem is further exacerbated by insufficient referral systems and lack of a functioning ambulatory system or a quick alternate transport system [46, 47]. The lack of a well-coordinated referral system with adequate means of transportation causes a delay in accessing emergency obstetric care, especially for women in underserved communities resulting in adverse outcomes not only for mothers but also the babies.

The poor quality of maternal health care in Nigeria is well documented [41, 48]. Poor quality of care results in adverse outcomes, erodes the confidence of users and may also explain why the use of caesarean section is low in the country. A recent Lancet commission study reveals that over 50% of maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa occur due to poor quality of care [49, 50]. Also, a recent study has shown that outcomes of caesarean section are poor in sub-Africa, with maternal deaths following C-section 50 times higher in Africa compared to high-income countries [51]. Women in Nigeria are aware of the adverse outcomes associated with caesarean section and may explain why women are afraid of caesarean section [37, 38]. Training and equipping doctors in Nigeria to provide quality obstetric services is required to restore users confidence and save the lives of mothers and babies.

Given the findings of this study, it is critical to address the inequality in the use of caesarean section in Nigeria and by extension, inequality in access to maternal health care services. Nigeria is among the signatories to the SDGs, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages and leaving no one behind [52, 53]. Specifically, the health target 3.1 aims to achieve a maternal mortality ratio of fewer than 70 deaths per 100,000 live births [1, 52, 53]. Nigeria currently records 814 deaths per 100,000 live births [1]. Getting to 70 deaths per 100,000 live births remains a daunting task for the country. However, with good leadership and effective utilisation of resources, and by prioritising the socially deprived, a well-articulated and implemented health insurance scheme, much progress will be recorded towards achieving the SDG 2030 target. Making maternal health care services, especially birth by caesarean section, universally accessible is paramount to achieving the SDGs target 3.1. This will require not only the effort of the Nigerian government but a global response to address the dire plight of women. This also means bringing the intervention closer to women, that is, providing health care facilities with the capacity to perform caesarean sections in underserved communities. To improve maternal outcomes in Nigeria requires addressing both demand and supply factors hindering access to caesarean births.

Study strengths and limitations

This study has some limitations. The data were drawn from the NDHS, which was conducted through reliance on women’s power of retrospection. This means that women have to recall past events which may have happened over five years. While it is feasible to recall such events, it is also worth noting that it is subject to recall and social desirability bias. The use of caesarean section as an indicator of health inequality is limited because it has been documented that doctors with insufficient experience are left unsupported to make crucial obstetric decisions, resulting in some women being subjected to present and future risks of surgery to be delivered by a caesarean that was not even necessary [51]. This could lead to a higher rate of caesarean section among women who can afford to pay. However, the study’s strength lies in the use of a large pool of data, which is rich and nationally representative, to assess inequality in access to caesarean section as an emergency obstetric service. The use of wealth and education as a proxy measure of inequality is highly reliable.

Conclusion

This study shows that women in Nigeria have inequitable access to caesarean section service and maternal care. The utilisation of caesarean section among women in the richest households is within the WHO’s recommended ideal level, but women in the poorest households fall significantly lower than the recommended rate, and this has catastrophic implications on maternal and neonatal survival. Equity in maternal healthcare is still a promise which has not become a reality; thus, the government need to do more to ensure that maternal health care services are available to those who need them most not only to those who can afford them.

13 Jun 2019

PONE-D-19-15544

Examining inequalities in access to delivery by caesarean section in Nigeria

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Ajayi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jul 28 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles A. Ameh, PhD, MPH, FWACS (OBGYN), FRCOG

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments

Dear Authors,

I think this is a very relevant topic, inequity of in the availability of CS and in a country that makes a significant contribution to global maternal mortality. Given that the 2018 Nigeria DHS report and data sets are available, it makes your paper based on data related to 5 years preceding 2013 NDHS less relevant. What about running a similar analysis using DHS 2018 data set and comparing both results? If you can do this, I will be happy to send your revised manuscript for review.

Best wishes

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

15 Jun 2019

Comment

I think this is a very relevant topic, inequity of in the availability of CS and in a country that makes a significant contribution to global maternal mortality. Given that the 2018 Nigeria DHS report and data sets are available, it makes your paper based on data related to 5 years preceding 2013 NDHS less relevant. What about running a similar analysis using DHS 2018 data set and comparing both results? If you can do this, I will be happy to send your revised manuscript for review.

Response

The comments are important and we made effort to use the latest nationally representative data available. We have now contacted DHS and were informed that the NDHS 2018 data is not available to the public at the moment and were also told that only the preliminary result is publicly available. The full report is not yet out. Given the paucity of studies on this important topic, we believe that our paper will contribute to the literature and serve as reference point to future studies. We have however noted the comments and added it as one of our future papers to be written once the NDHS 2018 dataset is finally released.

Submitted filename: Dear Editor.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-15544R1

Examining inequalities in access to delivery by caesarean section in Nigeria

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Ajayi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 16 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles A. Ameh, PhD, MPH, FWACS (OBGYN), FRCOG

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thanks for submitting to PLOS One. After careful review, we have concluded that the article does not contribute new knowledge unless significantly revised. A recent article using the same DHS 2013 data set https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/9/6/e027273.full.pdf may be of interest as you repackage your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: i commend the authors for reviewing an important topic and their ambitious plans to effect a positive change ( improvement in women healthcare in Nigeria) from their findings.

The large data set and parameters reviewed gives strength to this research work. However, there is new and important reference survey from Nigeria DHS 2018 report which makes the research work outdated as it was based on the old NDHS 2013 report. I appreciate the fact that authors have made an attempt to request the data from the 2018 report which is not fully available to the general public. Perhaps this research can be delayed and new analysis done based on the new report

Based on this submission, he conclusion does not add anything new to what is already known about this topic. Linking the disparity to maternity outcome variables within the data set might actually provide strong evidence and attract interest to effect change as intended.

Reviewer #2: There are numerous grammatical errors throughout the text, albeit they do not detract from the meaning. However, they should be addressed. The main issue however is that of the depth of the discussion. That there is inequity across the continuum of care is well addressed in Countdown 2030, and Nigeria remains a Countdown country. Caesarean section rates may be seen to some extent as a surrogate for the accessibility and availability of obstetric care, but there are other important factors to consider, both on the supply and demand sides, that have relevance to the rate of caesarean sections in real life situations. Whereas the authors have focused briefly on some demand side issues that may contribute to women declining a caesarean delivery there are many supply side issues too. I would have been interested to see more of a discussion as to why better educated women in the top wealth quintile have a higher rate of caesarean deliveries as compared to those with the same wealth but less education. Also the issue of whether the woman has health insurance also plays a part. A considered discussion of the influence of these factors on possible decision making processes by doctors is of relevance. Another complicating factor is that not all caesareans are done for good reasons even when the underlying rate is low. There are many reasons for this, but one factor is that doctors with insufficient experience are left unsupported to make crucial obstetric decisions, resulting in some women being subjected to all the present and future risks of surgery to be delivered by a caesarean that wasn't even necessary. This is a limitation of choosing caesarean rates as a surrogate for quality care provision, and should be mentioned. I feel therefore that if caesarean section rate is the measure to be considered in this important discourse on equity than the discussion would greatly benefit from a re-write to look in greater depth at the possible "why" questions that lie behind the inequities. We already know from looking at both Countdown and the DHS that inequity is a big issue, but it is not likely that meaningful change will occur until the "why" questions are addressed more forensically.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

11 Jul 2019

Dear Editor

We are to submit the revised version of our manuscript. The comments provided during the review process have further enabled to strengthen our manuscript. We trust you will find that our manuscript has improved significantly during this process. Our responses to the comments raised by the reviewers are found below.

Best regards

Anthony Ajayi

On behalf of all authors.

Reviewer #1: I commend the authors for reviewing an important topic and their ambitious plans to effect a positive change (improvement in women healthcare in Nigeria) from their findings.

The large data set and parameters reviewed gives strength to this research work. However, there is new and important reference survey from Nigeria DHS 2018 report which makes the research work outdated as it was based on the old NDHS 2013 report.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the constructive and positive feedback.

I appreciate the fact that authors have made an attempt to request the data from the 2018 report which is not fully available to the general public. Perhaps this research can be delayed and new analysis done based on the new report. Based on this submission, the conclusion does not add anything new to what is already known about this topic. Linking the disparity to maternity outcome variables within the data set might actually provide strong evidence and attract interest to effect change as intended.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. As we said previously, we intend to write a second paper examining the change in inequality in access to birth by caesarean section when the recently completed 2018 DHS data is released and becomes publicly available. We believe our paper fills an important gap given our focus on this important issue that affects the lives of many women in Nigeria as over 58, 000 maternal deaths are recorded annually. Our paper further contributes to the evidence base for understanding the reason for the high burden of maternal deaths in Nigeria. We outline inequality in access to caesarean section as a contributing factor to adverse maternal outcomes in Nigeria, thus, contributing to knowledge on why maternal deaths are prevalent in Nigeria. We hope to build on this study in the future utilizing datasets from previous as well as the 2018 DHS to perform trend analysis to show changes in caesarean section utilization as an emergency obstetric care and hopefully will lead to the desired changes in supply and demand aspect of maternal health delivery in Nigeria.

Reviewer #2: There are numerous grammatical errors throughout the text, albeit they do not detract from the meaning. However, they should be addressed.

Response: We have extensively proofread our manuscript and also engaged a language editor.

Reviewer #2: The main issue, however, is that of the depth of the discussion. That there is inequity across the continuum of care is well addressed in Countdown 2030, and Nigeria remains a Countdown country. Caesarean section rates may be seen to some extent as a surrogate for the accessibility and availability of obstetric care, but there are other important factors to consider, both on the supply and demand sides, that have relevance to the rate of caesarean sections in real life situations. Whereas the authors have focused briefly on some demand side issues that may contribute to women declining a caesarean delivery there are many supply side issues too. I would have been interested to see more of a discussion as to why better educated women in the top wealth quintile have a higher rate of caesarean deliveries as compared to those with the same wealth but less education. Also the issue of whether the woman has health insurance also plays a part. A considered discussion of the influence of these factors on possible decision making processes by doctors is of relevance. Another complicating factor is that not all caesareans are done for good reasons even when the underlying rate is low. There are many reasons for this, but one factor is that doctors with insufficient experience are left unsupported to make crucial obstetric decisions, resulting in some women being subjected to all the present and future risks of surgery to be delivered by a caesarean that wasn't even necessary. This is a limitation of choosing caesarean rates as a surrogate for quality care provision, and should be mentioned. I feel therefore that if caesarean section rate is the measure to be considered in this important discourse on equity than the discussion would greatly benefit from a re-write to look in greater depth at the possible "why" questions that lie behind the inequities. We already know from looking at both Countdown and the DHS that inequity is a big issue, but it is not likely that meaningful change will occur until the "why" questions are addressed more forensically.

Response: We agree with the points highlighted and thank the reviewer for these insightful comments, which have enabled us to significantly improve on the discussion section of our paper. We have revised our discussion to better focus on both supply and demand sides of the caesarean section. Also, we have discussed the effect of health insurance coverage in birth by caesarean section. The countdown 2030 is an enormous piece of work that monitors and measure women’s, children’s, and adolescents’ health in the 81 countries that account for 95% of maternal and 90% of all child deaths worldwide. We have read several publications from the countdown work to gain more insight into the issue of inequity in health outcomes. We have benefited from the insight and experience of the reviewer.

12 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-15544R2

Examining inequalities in access to delivery by caesarean section in Nigeria

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Ajayi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles A. Ameh, PhD, MPH, FWACS (OBGYN), FRCOG

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thanks for making significant improvements to this manuscript. There are minor comments to address before it can be accepted for publication. Thanks

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Many thanks to the authors for the revisions made. However, this topic which is based on the old data set (Nigeria DHS 2013) has been covered extensively in some recently published articles therefore adds no new information to what is already known on this topic.

Reviewer #2: This paper has been greatly improved. My only additional comment is that I feel the paragraph in the discussion starting "anecdotal evidence suggests..." where the authors go on to discuss longer hospital stays following caesarean section should have some reference for the assertions made regarding hospital stay. Otherwise, the discussion is much richer and of wider interest as a result.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 Aug 2019

Dear Editor,

We want to thank you and the reviewers for the constructive criticism and suggestions that have helped us to improve our manuscript. We have now addressed the comments raised, and we trust you will find our manuscript acceptable for publication.

Below we provide a point-by-point response to the comments.

Best Regards

Anthony

On behalf of all authors.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thanks for making significant improvements to this manuscript. There are minor comments to address before it can be accepted for publication. Thanks

Response: We thank the Editor for providing us with constructive feedback that has helped us to improve our manuscript.

Reviewer #1: Many thanks to the authors for the revisions made. However, this topic which is based on the old data set (Nigeria DHS 2013) has been covered extensively in some recently published articles, therefore, adds no new information to what is already known on this topic.

Response: We believe our paper addresses an important topic, and our work is unique by focusing on inequality in access to caesarean section in Nigeria, a country that contributes 19% of global maternal deaths. While the 2013 NDHS may appear to the old in the context of the 2018 NDHS data, the fact is that the 2013 data is still the most recent publicly available. As indicated in our earlier response, when the 2018 data set becomes available, we hope to build on this work to undertake trend analysis on the caesarean section utilization.

Reviewer #2: This paper has been greatly improved. My only additional comment is that I feel the paragraph in the discussion starting "anecdotal evidence suggests..." where the authors go on to discuss longer hospital stays following caesarean section should have some reference for the assertions made regarding hospital stay. Otherwise, the discussion is much richer and of wider interest as a result.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments that have enabled us to revise our discussion section significantly. We have now referenced the paragraph as suggested.

15 Aug 2019

Examining inequalities in access to delivery by caesarean section in Nigeria

PONE-D-19-15544R3

Dear Dr. Ajayi,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Charles A. Ameh, PhD, MPH, FWACS (OBGYN), FRCOG

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thanks for addressing all comments, I am pleased to recommend this manuscript for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

22 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-15544R3

Examining inequalities in access to delivery by caesarean section in Nigeria

Dear Dr. Ajayi:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Charles A. Ameh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE