Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30678731›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2019

Caesarean sections in the in the context of the Chiranjeevi Yojana public private partnership program to promote institutional birth in Gujarat, India; does the embedded disincentive for caesarean section work?

Mariano Salazar, Kranti Vora, Kristi Sidney Annerstedt, Ayesha De Costa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mariano SalazarDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18a, Widerströmska Huset, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. mariano.salazar@ki.se.
Kranti VoraDepartment of Reproductive and Child Health, Indian Institute of Public Health, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Kristi Sidney AnnerstedtDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18a, Widerströmska Huset, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ayesha De CostaDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18a, Widerströmska Huset, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Indian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar · INKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe government of Gujarat, India runs a large public private partnership program to widen access to emergency obstetric care (EmOC). The program include a disincentive for Cesareans section (CS) which are capped at seven per 100 women. In this paper, we study if the disincentive works by comparing CS rates among similar groups of women who deliver within and outside the program.

methodsCommunity-based panel study in three districts of Gujarat, India. SAMPLE SIZE: 2123 women. Data was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

resultsOverall seven point seven % (164/2123) of the all women in the study had a CS. After adjusting for confounding factors women within the program had 62% (AOR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22-0.44) lower odds of having a CS than to non-beneficiaries. In a separate model of predictors of CS among women giving birth only in program accredited hospitals, we found that CY program beneficiaries had lower odds of having a CS birth than non-beneficiary women (paying clients) (AOR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67).

conclusionsThe Gujarat government is trying to ensure access to EmOC (including CS) for its vulnerable population through CY. The embedded disincentive to prevent unnecessary cesareans by private obstetricians is a novel one, and appears to work, though one could argue it works 'over-efficiently' by depriving some women who need CS from receiving one under the program. The state needs to revisit and review what is happening in the program periodically, and have oversight over whether women who need CS under the program actually receive the care that they need.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesPublic-Private Sector PartnershipsAdolescentAdultCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIndiaLogistic ModelsMaternal Health ServicesMiddle AgedMotivationPregnancyVulnerable PopulationsCesarean sectionCohortFinancial incentiveGujaratIndiaPopulation-basedPublic private partnership

Identifiers

PMID30678731
PMCPMC6345034
OpenAlexW2919621947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.