Observed trends in the magnitude of socioeconomic and area-based inequalities in use of caesarean section in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.
Caesarean section
DHS
Ethiopia
Global health
Inequality
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Aug 2020
11 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
03
01
2020
accepted:
26
07
2020
entrez:
13
8
2020
pubmed:
13
8
2020
medline:
27
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In Ethiopia, there is a paucity of studies on inequality in caesarean section using methodologically rigorous and well-established approaches. In this study, we showed extent and the overtime dynamics of inequality in caesarean section in Ethiopia following rigorous methodologies. The data for analysis came from Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS) conducted between 2000 and 2016. We used the World Health Organization's (WHO) Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT) to analyze the data. Caesarean delivery was disaggregated by four equity stratifiers, namely education, wealth, residence and regions. Relative and absolute summary measures were calculated for each equity stratifier to capture inequality from different perspectives. 95% Uncertainty Interval was calculated around a point estimate to measure statistical significance. We found large socioeconomic and area-based inequalities in use of caesarean section in all study surveys. The inequalities have occurred in favour of socioeconomically advantaged women and those living in urban areas and certain regions such as Addis Ababa. While area-related inequality had generally increased with time, socioeconomic inequality showed fluctuation. Adoption of different measures in the study for the inequality analysis has caused the emergence of mix of patterns in caesarean section inequality over time. In all the surveys, wealthy and more educated women, and those residing in urban areas had higher chance of obtaining caesarean delivery. Policy makers should work to ensure caesarean section that is in the accepted normal range. More emphasis should be drawn to subpopulation with under use of caesarean section while at the same time, discouraging unjustified use of it.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In Ethiopia, there is a paucity of studies on inequality in caesarean section using methodologically rigorous and well-established approaches. In this study, we showed extent and the overtime dynamics of inequality in caesarean section in Ethiopia following rigorous methodologies.
METHODS
METHODS
The data for analysis came from Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS) conducted between 2000 and 2016. We used the World Health Organization's (WHO) Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT) to analyze the data. Caesarean delivery was disaggregated by four equity stratifiers, namely education, wealth, residence and regions. Relative and absolute summary measures were calculated for each equity stratifier to capture inequality from different perspectives. 95% Uncertainty Interval was calculated around a point estimate to measure statistical significance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found large socioeconomic and area-based inequalities in use of caesarean section in all study surveys. The inequalities have occurred in favour of socioeconomically advantaged women and those living in urban areas and certain regions such as Addis Ababa. While area-related inequality had generally increased with time, socioeconomic inequality showed fluctuation. Adoption of different measures in the study for the inequality analysis has caused the emergence of mix of patterns in caesarean section inequality over time.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In all the surveys, wealthy and more educated women, and those residing in urban areas had higher chance of obtaining caesarean delivery. Policy makers should work to ensure caesarean section that is in the accepted normal range. More emphasis should be drawn to subpopulation with under use of caesarean section while at the same time, discouraging unjustified use of it.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32781997
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09297-x
pii: 10.1186/s12889-020-09297-x
pmc: PMC7418379
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1222Références
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Aug 22;16(1):152
pubmed: 28830454
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Oct 19;16(1):141
pubmed: 27760520
BMJ. 2018 Jan 24;360:k55
pubmed: 29367432
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1349-1357
pubmed: 30322585
Health Equity. 2019 Apr 26;3(1):145-154
pubmed: 31289773
Lancet. 2006 Oct 28;368(9546):1516-23
pubmed: 17071285
Lancet. 2010 Feb 6;375(9713):490-9
pubmed: 20071021
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 16;147(8):573-7
pubmed: 17938396
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1775-1812
pubmed: 27733286
Lancet. 2000 Oct 21;356(9239):1375-83
pubmed: 11052579
Glob Health Res Policy. 2018 Jul 02;3:19
pubmed: 29988650
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001390
pubmed: 23667332
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan;202(1):65.e1-6
pubmed: 19819416
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 29;14(3):e0213896
pubmed: 30925153
BJOG. 2016 Apr;123(5):667-70
pubmed: 26681211
Reprod Health. 2015 Jun 21;12:57
pubmed: 26093498
Int J Equity Health. 2012 Aug 29;11:49
pubmed: 22931249
Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):14
pubmed: 24563907
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 14;20(1):652
pubmed: 32664936
Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Dec 1;91(12):914-922D
pubmed: 24347730