Equitable coverage? The roles of the private and public sectors in providing maternal, newborn and child health interventions in South Asia.
Asia
health equity
health status disparities
maternal–child health services
socioeconomic factors
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
11
02
2019
revised:
17
05
2019
accepted:
25
05
2019
entrez:
24
9
2019
pubmed:
24
9
2019
medline:
24
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The private sector accounts for an important share of health services available in South Asia. It is not known to what extent socioeconomic and urban-rural inequalities in maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) interventions are being affected by the presence of private providers. Nationally representative surveys carried out from 2009 to 2015 were analysed for seven of the eight countries in South Asia, as data for Sri Lanka were not available. The outcomes studied included antenatal care (four or more visits), institutional delivery, early initiation of breast feeding, postnatal care for babies, and careseeking for diarrhoea and pneumonia. Results were stratified according to quintiles of household wealth and urban-rural residence. At regional level, the public sector played a larger role than the private sector in providing antenatal (24.8% vs 15.6% coverage), delivery (51.9% vs 26.8%) and postnatal care (15.7% vs 8.2%), as well as in the early initiation of breast feeding (26.1% vs 11.1%). The reverse was observed in careseeking for diarrhoea (15.0% and 46.2%) and pneumonia (18.2% and 50.5%). In 28 out of 37 possible analyses of coverage by country, socioeconomic inequalities were significantly wider in the private than in the public sector, and in only four cases the reverse pattern was observed. In 20 of the 37 analyses, the public sector was also more likely to be used by the wealthiest women and children. The private sector plays a substantial role in delivering MNCH interventions in South Asia but is more inequitable than the public sector.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31543985
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001495
pii: bmjgh-2019-001495
pmc: PMC6730586
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e001495Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Lancet. 2003 Jul 19;362(9379):233-41
pubmed: 12885488
Pediatrics. 2006 Mar;117(3):e380-6
pubmed: 16510618
Health Policy Plan. 2008 Jan;23(1):1-13
pubmed: 17999986
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD008133
pubmed: 19821443
Lancet. 2010 Jun 5;375(9730):2009-23
pubmed: 20569841
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 28;6(2):e17155
pubmed: 21386886
Health Policy Plan. 2011 Jul;26 Suppl 1:i4-12
pubmed: 21729916
PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001244
pubmed: 22723748
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001390
pubmed: 23667332
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001391
pubmed: 23667333
J Health Econ. 2015 Sep;43:154-69
pubmed: 26302940
Lancet. 2015 Dec 5;386(10010):2275-86
pubmed: 26361942
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):462-74
pubmed: 26584737
Trop Med Int Health. 2016 Apr;21(4):486-503
pubmed: 26892335
Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):622-30
pubmed: 27358252
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Jul 1;35(7):1214-21
pubmed: 27385236
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Oct;4(10):e682-3
pubmed: 27633424
Lancet. 2017 Dec 17;388(10063):3027-3035
pubmed: 27839855
BMJ. 2017 Apr 11;357:j1645
pubmed: 28400377
BMJ. 2017 Apr 11;357:j1482
pubmed: 28400385
BMJ. 2017 Apr 11;357:j1608
pubmed: 28400481
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Apr 24;17(1):50
pubmed: 29690902
Lancet. 2018 Nov 17;392(10160):2203-2212
pubmed: 30195398
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1341-1348
pubmed: 30322584