| Literature DB >> 35136786 |
Nivedita Roy1, Piyush Kumar Mishra2, Vijay Kumar Mishra3, Vijay Kumar Chattu4, Souryakant Varandani2, Sonu Kumar Batham5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caesarean section (C-section) delivery is a serious maternal health concern in the long run. Notedly, there is a lack of studies dealing with understanding the ways and reasons of C-section deliveries becoming a public health issue in today's time in India and the measures to reduce the unnecessary caesarean sections. We have conducted this study to study the changes in the state-wise prevalence of C-section deliveries in India and understand C-section delivery's socioeconomic and biomedical predictors.Entities:
Keywords: C-section; maternal health; multiple logistic regression; out-of-pocket expenditure; private health facility; socio-economic status
Year: 2021 PMID: 35136786 PMCID: PMC8797113 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_585_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Family Med Prim Care ISSN: 2249-4863
Figure 1Factors affecting increasing rate of C-section deliveries
Figure 2Spatial distribution of percentage of caesarean section delivery across Indian States, NFHS
Changes in C-section deliveries across the Indian states, NFHS (2015-2020)
| States/UTs | NFHS-4 (2015-2016) | NFHS-5 (2019-2020) | AC | RC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lakshadweep | 38.4 | 31.3 | -7.1 | -18.5 |
| Mizoram | 12.7 | 10.8 | -1.9 | -15.0 |
| Nagaland | 5.8 | 5.2 | -0.6 | -10.3 |
| Telangana | 57.7 | 60.7 | 3.0 | 5.2 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 40.1 | 42.4 | 2.3 | 5.7 |
| Kerala | 40.1 | 42.4 | 2.3 | 5.7 |
| Meghalaya | 7.6 | 8.2 | 0.6 | 7.9 |
| Gujarat | 18.4 | 21.0 | 2.6 | 14.1 |
| Manipur | 21.1 | 25.6 | 4.5 | 21.3 |
| Tripura | 20.5 | 25.1 | 4.6 | 22.4 |
| Jammu and Kashmir | 33.4 | 41.7 | 8.3 | 24.9 |
| Himachal Pradesh | 16.7 | 21.0 | 4.3 | 25.7 |
| Goa | 31.4 | 39.5 | 8.1 | 25.8 |
| Maharashtra | 20.1 | 25.4 | 5.3 | 26.4 |
| Karnataka | 23.6 | 31.5 | 7.9 | 33.5 |
| Assam | 13.4 | 18.1 | 4.7 | 35.1 |
| West Bengal | 23.8 | 32.6 | 8.8 | 37.0 |
| Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu | 16.1 | 22.9 | 6.8 | 42.2 |
| Andaman and Nicobar | 19.3 | 29.9 | 10.6 | 54.9 |
| Bihar | 6.2 | 9.7 | 3.5 | 56.5 |
| Sikkim | 20.9 | 32.8 | 11.9 | 56.9 |
| Ladakh | 16.1 | 37.6 | 21.5 | 133.5 |
AC: Absolute change, RC: Relative change
Result of multiple logistic regression showing association between C-section delivery and selected predictors, NFHS-4
| Caesarean (outcome variable) | Odds Ratio | Sth. Err | 95% Confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| LL | UL | |||
| Age group (in years) | ||||
| 15-20® | 1 | |||
| 20-30 | 1.08*** | 0.03 | 1.03 | 1.14 |
| 30-40 | 1.39*** | 0.04 | 1.32 | 1.48 |
| 40+ | 1.77*** | 0.13 | 1.52 | 2.05 |
| Place of residence | ||||
| Urban® | 1 | |||
| Rural | 0.84*** | 0.01 | 0.82 | 0.86 |
| Education | ||||
| No education® | 1 | |||
| Primary | 1.40*** | 0.04 | 1.36 | 1.5 |
| Secondary | 1.57*** | 0.03 | 1.54 | 1.66 |
| Higher | 1.64*** | 0.04 | 1.6 | 1.76 |
| Place of delivery | ||||
| Public® | 1 | |||
| Private | 4.45*** | 0.06 | 4.34 | 4.57 |
| ANC visit | ||||
| No visit® | 1 | |||
| 1-4 | 1.38*** | 0.02 | 1.34 | 1.43 |
| >5 | 2.10*** | 0.03 | 2.04 | 2.17 |
| Birth order | ||||
| 1-2® | 1 | |||
| 3-5 | 0.39*** | 0.01 | 0.37 | 0.4 |
| >5 | 0.17*** | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.2 |
| Wealth index | ||||
| Poor® | 1 | |||
| Middle | 1.62*** | 0.03 | 1.55 | 1.66 |
| Rich | 1.46*** | 0.03 | 1.41 | 1.52 |
| OOPE | ||||
| No expenses® | 1 | |||
| <25000 | 0.79*** | 0.02 | 0.76 | 0.82 |
| >=25000 | 1.70*** | 0.04 | 1.62 | 1.78 |
| BMI | ||||
| Underweight® | 1 | |||
| Normal | 1.26*** | 0.02 | 1.22 | 1.31 |
| Overweight/obese | 2.45*** | 0.05 | 2.36 | 2.55 |
| Size of the child | ||||
| Large® | 1 | |||
| Average | 0.77*** | 0.01 | 0.75 | 0.8 |
| Small | 0.87*** | 0.03 | 0.81 | 0.94 |
| Others | 0.50*** | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.58 |
®Reference category, P***< 0.0001, LL: Lower limit, UL: Upper limit, OOPE: Out-of-pocket expenditure. Note: Author’ estimation on NFHS-4 data (2015-2016)