Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33795363›Full record

ArticleGlobal health, science and practice2021

Levels, Trends, and Inequalities in Using Institutional Delivery Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Stratified Analysis by Facility Type.

Md Mehedi Hasan, Ricardo J Soares Magalhaes, Yaqoot Fatima, Saifuddin Ahmed, Abdullah A Mamun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health, science and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Md Mehedi HasanInstitute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia. m.m.hasan@uqconnect.edu.au.
Ricardo J Soares MagalhaesUQ Spatial Epidemiology Laboratory, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Australia.
Yaqoot FatimaInstitute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia.
Saifuddin AhmedDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abdullah A MamunInstitute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo ensure equitable and accessible services and improved utilization of institutional delivery it is important to identify what progress has been achieved, whether there are vulnerable and disadvantaged groups that need specific attention and what are the key factors affecting the utilization of institutional delivery services. In this study, we examined levels, trends, and inequalities in the utilization of institutional delivery services in low- and middle-income countries.

methodsWe used nationally representative cross-sectional data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted during 1990-2018. Bayesian linear regression analysis was performed.

resultsAmong 74 countries, the utilization of institutional delivery services ranged from 23.7% in Chad to 100% in Ukraine and Armenia (with >90% in 19 countries and <50% in 13 countries) during the latest DHS rounds. Trend analysis in 63 countries with at least 2 surveys showed that the utilization of institutional delivery services increased in 60 countries during 1990-2018, with the highest increase being in Cambodia (18.3%). During this period, the utilization of institutional delivery services increased in 90.3% of countries among the richest, 95.2% of countries in urban, and 84.1% of countries among secondary+ educated women. The utilization of institutional delivery services was higher among wealthiest, urban, and secondary+ educated women compared to their counterparts. Greater utilization of private facilities for delivery was observed in women from the highest income group and urban communities, whereas highest utilization of public facilities was observed for women from the lowest income group and rural communities.

conclusionsThe utilization of institutional delivery services varied substantially between and within countries over time. Significant disparities in service utilization identified in this study highlight the need for tailored support for women from disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricMaternal Health ServicesBayes TheoremCross-Sectional StudiesDeveloping CountriesFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansPregnancySocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID33795363
PMCPMC8087431

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.