Optimizing availability of obstetric surgical care in India: A cost-effectiveness analysis examining rates and access to Cesarean sections.

The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of three different strategies with different availabilities of cesarean sections (CS). The setting was rural and urban areas of India with varying rates of CS and access to comprehensive emergency obstetric care (CEmOC) for women of reproductive age in India. Three strategies with different access to CEmOC and CS rates were evaluated: (A) India's national average (50.2% access, 17.2% CS rate), (B) rural areas (47.2% access, 12.8% CS rate) and(C) urban areas (55.7% access, 28.2% CS rate). We performed a first-order Monte Carlo simulation using a 1-year cycle time and 34-year time horizon. All inputs were derived from literature. A societal perspective was utilized with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,940. The outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life years were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were calculated. Strategy C with the highest access to CEmOC despite the highest CS rate was cost-effective, with an ICER of 354.90. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated this was driven by increased access to CEmOC. The highest CS rate strategy had the highest number of previa, accreta and ICU admissions. The strategy with the lowest access to CEmOC had the highest number of fistulae, uterine rupture, and stillbirths. In conclusion, morbidity and mortality result from lack of access to CEmOC and overuse of CS. While interventions are needed to address both, increasing access to surgical obstetric care drives cost-effectiveness and is paramount to optimize outcomes.

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Roa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MGS serves on the board for Pharos Global Health Advisors, has received speaking fees from Meditech and the American Hospital Association. AAB serves on the scientific advisory board for RHIA ventures and has provided consulting services to DARE Bioscience.