Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31302699›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2019

Investigating the nature of competition facing private healthcare facilities: the case of maternity care in Uttar Pradesh, India.

Meenakshi Gautham, Katia Bruxvoort, Richard Iles, Manish Subharwal, Sanjay Gupta, Manish Jain, Catherine Goodman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

7 authors.

Meenakshi GauthamDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17, Tavistock Place, London, UK.
Katia BruxvoortDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17, Tavistock Place, London, UK.
Richard IlesSchool of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
Manish SubharwalIMPACT Partners in Social Development, JE-1/1, LGF, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Sanjay GuptaIMPACT Partners in Social Development, JE-1/1, LGF, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Manish JainIMPACT Partners in Social Development, JE-1/1, LGF, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Catherine GoodmanDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17, Tavistock Place, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The private healthcare sector in low- and middle-income countries is increasingly seen as of public health importance, with widespread interest in improving private provider engagement. However, there is relatively little literature providing an in-depth understanding of the operation of private providers. We conducted a mixed methods analysis of the nature of competition faced by private delivery providers in Uttar Pradesh, India, where maternal mortality remains very high. We mapped health facilities in five contrasting districts, surveyed private facilities providing deliveries and conducted in-depth interviews with facility staff, allied providers (e.g. ambulance drivers, pathology laboratories) and other key informants. Over 3800 private facilities were mapped, of which 8% reported providing deliveries, mostly clustered in cities and larger towns. 89% of delivery facilities provided C-sections, but over half were not registered. Facilities were generally small, and the majority were independently owned, mostly by medical doctors and, to a lesser extent, AYUSH (non-biomedical) providers and others without formal qualifications. Recent growth in facility numbers had led to intense competition, particularly among mid-level facilities where customers were more price sensitive. In all facilities, nearly all payment was out-of-pocket, with very low-insurance coverage. Non-price competition was a key feature of the market and included location (preferably on highways or close to government facilities), medical infrastructure, hotel features, staff qualifications and reputation, and marketing. There was heavy reliance on visiting consultants such as obstetricians, surgeons and anaesthetists, and payment of hefty commission payments to agents who brought clients to the facility, for both new patients and those transferring from public facilities. Building on these insights, strategies for private sector engagement could include a foundation of universal facility registration, adaptation of accreditation schemes to lower-level facilities, improved third-party payment mechanisms and strategic purchasing, and enhanced patient information on facility availability, costs and quality.

Indexed as

Economic CompetitionPrivate SectorDelivery, ObstetricFemaleGovernment RegulationHealth ExpendituresHealth FacilitiesHumansIndiaInterviews as TopicMaternal Health ServicesMaternal MortalityPregnancyQualitative ResearchQuality of Health Carecompetitiondelivery careeconomicsIndiamaternal healthprivate providersPrivate sectorpublic–private engagementUttar Pradesh

Identifiers

PMID31302699
PMCPMC6735944

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.