Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32765611›Full record

ArticleObstetrics and gynecology international2020

Prevalence, Indications, and Community Perceptions of Caesarean Section Delivery in Ngora District, Eastern Uganda: Mixed Method Study.

Isaac Waniala, Sandra Nakiseka, Winnie Nambi, Isaac Naminya, Margret Osuban Ajeni, Jacob Iramiot, Rebecca Nekaka, Julius Nteziyaremye

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetrics and gynecology international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Inequalities in antenatal care in Ghana, 1998-2014.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Isaac WanialaDepartment of Community and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.
Sandra NakisekaDepartment of Community and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.
Winnie NambiDepartment of Community and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.
Isaac NaminyaDepartment of Community and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.
Margret Osuban AjeniDepartment of Community and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.
Jacob IramiotDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.
Rebecca NekakaDepartment of Community and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.
Julius NteziyaremyeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6286-2867
Busitema University · UGMbale Hospital · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUganda has a high maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 336/100,000 live births. Caesarean section is fundamental in achieving equity and equality in emergency obstetric care services. Despite it being a lifesaving intervention, it is associated with risks. There has been a surge in caesarean section rates in some areas, yet others remain underserved. Studies have shown that rates exceeding 15% do not improve maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Our study aimed at determining the prevalence, indications, and community perceptions of caesarean section delivery in Eastern Uganda. METHODS AND MATERIALS: It was both health facility and commuity based cross-sectional descriptive study in Ngora district, Eastern Uganda. Mixed methods of data collection were employed in which quantitative data were collected by retrospectively reviewing all charts of all the mothers that had delivered at the two comprehensive emergency obstetric care service facilities between April 2018 and March 2019. Qualitative data were collected by focus group discussions till point of saturation. Data were entered into EpiData (version 3.1) and analyzed using SPSS software (version 24). Qualitative data analysis was done by transcribing and translating into English verbatim and then analyzed into themes and subthemes with the help of NVIVO 12.

resultsOf the total 2573 deliveries, 14% (357/2573) were by CS. The major single indications were obstructed labour 17.9%, fetal distress 15.3%, big baby 11.6%, and cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) 11%. Although appreciated as lifesaving for young mothers, those with diseases and recurrent intrauterine fetal demise, others considered CS a curse, marriage-breaker, misfortune, money-maker and a sign of incompetent health workers, and being for the lazy women and the rich civil servants. The rise was also attributed to intramuscular injections and contraceptive use. Overall, vaginal delivery was the preferred route.

conclusionSeveral misconceptions that could hinder access to CS were found which calls for more counseling and male involvement. Although facility based, the rate is higher than the desired 5-15%. It is higher than the projected increase of 36% by 2021. It highlights the need for male involvement during counseling and consent for CS and concerted efforts to demystify community misconceptions about women that undergo CS. These misconceptions may be a hindrance to access to CS.

Identifiers

PMID32765611
PMCPMC7387994
OpenAlexW3043513592

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.