| Literature DB >> 31653255 |
Emmanuel Dankwah1, Shelley Kirychuk2, Wu Zeng3, Cindy Feng1,4, Marwa Farag5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of Caesarean Section (CS) delivery is partly to blame for Ghana's high maternal mortality rate. However, previous research offered mixed findings about factors associated with CS use. The goal of this study is to examine use of CS in Ghana and the socioeconomic factors associated with it.Entities:
Keywords: Birth; Caesarean section; Delivery; Ghana; Inequities; Socio-economic
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31653255 PMCID: PMC6814993 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-019-1063-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Fig. 1A flow chart of study participants
Distribution of women by predictors and caesarean section (CS) delivery, and crude odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of having CS delivery in univariable model
| Predictors | N (%) | CS delivery (%) | Crude OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4294 (100%) | ||||
| Maternal age | < 0.0001 | |||
| 15–24 years | 923 (21.5) | 6.6 | ref. | |
| 25–34 years | 2026 (47.2) | 11.5 | 2.42 (1.65, 3.55) | |
| 35–49 years | 1345 (31.3) | 14.3 | 3.31 (2.39, 4.59) | |
| Marital status | 0.01 | |||
| Single | 363 (8.5) | 12.1 | ref. | |
| Married | 2801 (65.2) | 11.9 | 1.52 (1.01, 2.28) | |
| Cohabitating | 830 (19.3) | 8.9 | 0.99 (0.62,1.60) | |
| Widow/Separated/Divorced | 300 (7.0) | 12.3 | 1.74 (0.84, 3.63) | |
| Religion | 0.06 | |||
| Traditional/other | 324 (7.6) | 5.6 | ref. | |
| Islam | 885 (20.6) | 9.9 | 1.56 (0.69, 3.49) | |
| Christian | 3085 (71.8) | 12.4 | 1.97 (0.98, 3.96) | |
| Ethnicity* | < 0.0001 | |||
| Northern tribes | 1796 (41.8) | 7.5 | ref. | |
| Akan | 1643 (38.3) | 15.2 | 2.19 (1.62, 2.96) | |
| Ewe | 476 (11.1) | 11.3 | 1.50 (0.99, 2.27) | |
| Ga | 198 (4.6) | 16.2 | 2.93 (1.68, 5.14) | |
| Other | 180 (4.2) | 10.0 | 1.65 (0.85, 3.21) | |
| Parity | < 0.0001 | |||
| 1birth | 935 (21.8) | 16.6 | ref. | |
| 2 births | 839 (19.5) | 12.2 | 0.68 (0.51, 0.91) | |
| ≥ 3 births | 2520 (58.7) | 9.2 | 0.54 (0.41, 0.71) | |
| Education | < 0.0001 | |||
| No education | 1419 (33.0) | 6.1 | ref. | |
| Primary | 869 (20.2) | 8.5 | 1.88 (1.15, 3.07) | |
| Secondary | 1837 (42.8) | 14.8 | 3.10 (2.25, 4.27) | |
| Higher | 169 (4.0) | 33.1 | 8.28 (5.11, 13.41) | |
| Place of residence | < 0.0001 | |||
| Rural | 2516 (58.6) | 7.3 | ref. | |
| Urban | 1778 (41.4) | 17.1 | 2.55 (1.89, 3.43) | |
| Wealth quintile | < 0.0001 | |||
| Poorest | 1318 (30.6) | 5.0 | ref. | |
| Poorer | 923 (21.5) | 7.2 | 1.56 (1.01, 2.41) | |
| Middle | 812 (18.9) | 11.1 | 2.67 (1.82, 3.92) | |
| Richer | 685 (16.0) | 16.5 | 4.21 (2.81, 6.30) | |
| Richest | 556 (13.0) | 27.5 | 8.12 (5.52, 11.94) | |
| Working status | 0.8 | |||
| Unemployed | 886 (20.6) | 11.0 | ref. | |
| Employed | 3408 (79.4) | 11.4 | 1.03 (0.75, 1.43) | |
Abbreviations: N number of observations, % percent, *N = 4293 due to missing values, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, ref. reference
AORs and corresponding 95% CIs of having a caesarean delivery by predictors in the multivariable logistic regression model
| Predictors | AOR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Maternal age (ref. | ||
| 25–34 years | 3.15 (2.11, 4.71) | < 0.0001 |
| 35–49 years | 7.53 (5.11,11.08) | < 0.0001 |
| Parity (ref. one birth) | ||
| 2 births | 0.52 (0.38, 0.73) | < 0.0001 |
| ≥ 3 births | 0.31 (0.22, 0.43) | < 0.0001 |
| Education (ref.no education) | ||
| Primary | 1.59 (0.98, 2.59) | 0.06 |
| Secondary | 1.65 (1.15, 2.36) | 0.006 |
| Higher | 2.17 (1.26, 3.74) | 0.005 |
| Wealth quintile (ref. poorest) | ||
| Poorer | 1.36 (0.89, 2.06) | 0.2 |
| Middle | 2.13 (1.43, 3.18) | < 0.0001 |
| Richer | 2.76 (1.77, 4.28) | < 0.0001 |
| Richest | 4.38 (2.83, 6.77) | < 0.0001 |
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, AOR adjusted odds ratio, % percent, ref. reference
Fig. 3Concentration curve for caesarean delivery, GDHS data 2014
Fig. 2Distribution of caesarean delivery by wealth quintile, GDHS data 2014