ArticlePloS one2021
Association between the type of provider and Cesarean section delivery in India: A socioeconomic analysis of the National Family Health Surveys 1999, 2006, 2016.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caesarean deliveries and their impact on financial burden and quality of life among post-partum mothers in Tamil Nadu, India.PloS one · 2026Article
- Health system drivers of caesarean deliveries in south Asia: a scoping review.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Review
- Identification of Spatial Hot spots Clustering and Geographically Weighted Regression Analysis to Assess Predictors of Cesarean Section Delivery in Northeastern States, India.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Article
- Caesarean section delivery & determining factors in northeastern State, India: A Bayesian spatio-temporal analysis of areal data.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Preventing the preventable: Assessing the burden of incessant caesarean deliveries in select Indian states using NFHS-5.PloS one · 2025Article
- State-wise variation and inequalities in caesarean delivery rates in India: analysis of the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-2021) data.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Article
- Navigating the choices of decision-making in cesarean sections: medical and personal perspectives from a qualitative study in Iraq.The Pan African medical journal · 2025Article
- Trends in nulliparous singleton alive births by cesarean section in India: Empirical patterns across public and private hospitals for 720 districts, 2016-2021.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Variations in the prevalence of caesarean section deliveries in India between 2016 and 2021 - an analysis of Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Evaluating the status of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery indicators for India.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2023Review
- Feasibility and acceptability of the Indian Autism Screening Questionnaire in clinical and community settings.PloS one · 2023Article
- Use of antenatal and delivery care services and their association with maternal and infant mortality in rural India.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Are cesarean deliveries equitable in India: assessment using benefit incidence analysis.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Geographical variability and factors associated with caesarean section delivery in India: a comparative assessment of Bihar and Tamil Nadu.BMC public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevalence of Cesarean section (C-section) is unequally distributed. Since both extremely low and high levels of C-section can not only cause adverse birth outcomes but also impose a double burden of inefficiency within maternal health care, it is important to monitor the dynamics of key factors associated with the use of C-section.
objectivesTo examine the association between type of provider and C-section in India in three-time points: 1999, 2006, and 2016, and also to assess whether this association differed across maternal education and wealth level.
methodsData were from three waves of cross-sectional and nationally representative Indian National Health Family Survey: Wave II (1999), III (2006), and IV (2016). Target population is women aged 15 and 49 who had an institutional delivery for the most recent live birth during the three or five years preceding the survey (depending on the survey round). Multivariate logistic regression models adjusting for state cluster effect were performed to determine the association between the type of providers and C-section. Differential association between the type of providers and C-section by maternal education and wealth level was examined by stratified analyses.
resultsThe prevalence of C-section among institutional delivery increased from 20.5% in 1999 to 24.8% in 2006 while it declined to 19.4% in 2016. The positive association between private providers and C-section became stronger over the study period (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.39, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.18-1.64 in 1999, OR = 3.71 95% CI 2.93-4.70 in 2016). The association was consistently significant across all states in 2016. The gap in C-section between public and private providers was greater among less-educated and poorer women. The ORs gradually increased from the poorest to the richest quintiles, and also from the least educated group (no formal education) to the most educated group (college graduate or above).
conclusionsOur results suggest that disparity in C-section between private and public providers has increased over the last 15 years and was higher in lower SES women. The behavior of providers needs to be closely monitored to ensure that C-section is performed only when medically justified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.