Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30287614›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Caesarean section provision and readiness in Tanzania: analysis of cross-sectional surveys of women and health facilities over time.

Francesca L Cavallaro, Andrea B Pembe, Oona Campbell, Claudia Hanson, Vandana Tripathi, Kerry Lm Wong, Emma Radovich, Lenka Benova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Estimating the prevalence of vaginal birth after cesarean section and repeat cesarean section: An analysis of nationally representative household surveys in 59 low- and middle-income countries.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Francesca L CavallaroFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9641-8780
Andrea B PembeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Oona CampbellFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Claudia HansonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Vandana TripathiFistula Care Plus Project, EngenderHealth, New York City, USA.
Kerry Lm WongFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4400-2257
Emma RadovichFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8975-8015
Lenka BenovaFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe trends in caesarean sections and facilities performing caesareans over time in Tanzania and examine the readiness of such facilities in terms of infrastructure, equipment and staffing.

designNationally representative, repeated cross-sectional surveys of women and health facilities.

settingTanzania.

participantsWomen of reproductive age and health facility staff.

main outcome measuresPopulation-based caesarean rate, absolute annual number of caesareans, percentage of facilities reporting to perform caesareans and three readiness indicators for safe caesarean care: availability of consistent electricity, 24 hour schedule for caesarean and anaesthesia providers, and availability of all general anaesthesia equipment.

resultsThe caesarean rate in Tanzania increased threefold from 2% in 1996 to 6% in 2015-16, while the total number of births increased by 60%. As a result, the absolute number of caesareans increased almost fivefold to 120 000 caesareans per year. The main mechanism sustaining the increase in caesareans was the doubling of median caesarean volume among public hospitals, from 17 caesareans per month in 2006 to 35 in 2014-15. The number of facilities performing caesareans increased only modestly over the same period. Less than half (43%) of caesareans in Tanzania in 2014-15 were performed in facilities meeting the three readiness indicators. Consistent electricity was widely available, and 24 hour schedules for caesarean and (less systematically) anaesthesia providers were observed in most facilities; however, the availability of all general anaesthesia equipment was the least commonly reported indicator, present in only 44% of all facilities (34% of public hospitals).

conclusionsGiven the rising trend in numbers of caesareans, urgent improvements in the availability of general anaesthesia equipment and trained anaesthesia staff should be made to ensure the safety of caesareans. Initial efforts should focus on improving anaesthesia provision in public and faith-based organisation hospitals, which together perform more than 90% of all caesareans in Tanzania.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, ObstetricalAttitude of Health PersonnelCesarean SectionMaternal Health ServicesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNeeds AssessmentPregnancyQuality ImprovementTanzaniacaesarean sectiondelivery carefacility readinesstanzania

Identifiers

PMID30287614
PMCPMC6173245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.