Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34011316›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

Pro-poor policies and improvements in maternal health outcomes in India.

M Bhatia, L K Dwivedi, K Banerjee, A Bansal, M Ranjan, P Dixit

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  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

6 authors.

M BhatiaDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. m.r.bhatia@lse.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9366-142X
L K DwivediInternational Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India.
K BanerjeeInternational Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India.
A BansalInternational Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India.
M RanjanDepartment of Statistics, Mizoram University, Pachhunga University College Campus, Aizawl, Mizoram, India.
P DixitSchool of Health Systems Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince 2005, India has experienced an impressive 77% reduction in maternal mortality compared to the global average of 43%. What explains this impressive performance in terms of reduction in maternal mortality and improvement in maternal health outcomes? This paper evaluates the effect of household wealth status on maternal mortality in India, and also separates out the performance of the Empowered Action Group (EAG) states and the Southern states of India. The results are discussed in the light of various pro-poor programmes and policies designed to reduce maternal mortality and the existing supply side gaps in the healthcare system of India. Using multiple sources of data, this study aims to understand the trends in maternal mortality (1997-2017) between EAG and non EAG states in India and explore various household, economic and policy factors that may explain reduction in maternal mortality and improvement in maternal health outcomes in India.

methodsThis study triangulates data from different rounds of Sample Registration Systems to assess the trend in maternal mortality in India. It further analysed the National Family Health Surveys (NFHS). NFHS-4, 2015-16 has gathered information on maternal mortality and pregnancy-related deaths from 601,509 households. Using logistic regression, we estimate the association of various socio-economic variables on maternal deaths in the various states of India.

resultsOn an average, wealth status of the households did not have a statistically significant association with maternal mortality in India. However, our disaggregate analysis reveals, the gains in terms of maternal mortality have been unevenly distributed. Although the rich-poor gap in maternal mortality has reduced in EAG states such as Bihar, Odisha, Assam, Rajasthan, the maternal mortality has remained above the national average for many of these states. The EAG states also experience supply side shortfalls in terms of availability of PHC and PHC doctors; and availability of specialist doctors.

conclusionsThe novel contribution of the present paper is that the association of household wealth status and place of residence with maternal mortality is statistically not significant implying financial barriers to access maternal health services have been minimised. This result, and India's impressive performance with respect to maternal health outcomes, can be attributed to the various pro-poor policies and cash incentive schemes successfully launched in recent years. Community-level involvement with pivotal role played by community health workers has been one of the major reasons for the success of many ongoing policies. Policy makers need to prioritise the underperforming states and socio-economic groups within the states by addressing both demand-side and supply-side measures simultaneously mediated by contextual factors.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesMaternal MortalityAdultFemaleHealth SurveysHumansIncomeIndiaPovertySocioeconomic FactorsYoung AdultConditional cash transfersDemand side financingDeveloping countriesFinancial incentivesIndiaMaternal healthMaternal health outcomesMaternal mortality

Identifiers

PMID34011316
PMCPMC8135986

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.