ArticleGlobal health action2023
What to scale first? A cross-sectional analysis of factors affecting cesarean delivery rates at first referral units in Bihar, India.
Article in Global health action, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monitoring and evaluation strategies for surgical task-shifting and task-sharing interventions: a scoping review.Human resources for health · 2026Article
- Perspectives of obstetricians and midwives on the preference for caesarean deliveries: a qualitative exploration in Andhra Pradesh, India.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow rates of caesarean delivery (CD) (<10%) hinder access to a lifesaving procedure for the most vulnerable populations in low-resource settings, but there is a paucity of data regarding which factors contribute most to CD rates.
objectivesWe aimed to determine caesarean delivery rates at Bihar's first referral units (FRUs) stratified by facility level (regional, sub-district, district). The secondary aim was to identify facility-level factors associated with caesarean delivery rates.
methodsThis cross-sectional study used open-source national datasets from government FRUs in Bihar, India, from April 2018-March 2019. Multivariate Poisson regression analysed association of infrastructure and workforce factors with CD rates.
resultsOf 546,444 deliveries conducted at 149 FRUs, 16961 were CDs, yielding a state-wide FRU CD of 3.1%. There were 67 (45%) regional hospitals, 45 (30%) sub-district hospitals, and 37 (25%) district hospitals. Sixty-one percent of FRUs qualified as having intact infrastructure, 84% had a functioning operating room, but only 7% were LaQshya (Labour Room Quality Improvement Initiative) certified. Considering workforce, 58% had an obstetrician-gynaecologist (range 0-10), 39% had an anaesthetist (range 0-5), and 35% had a provider trained in Emergency Obstetric Care (EmOC) (range 0-4) through a task-sharing initiative. The majority of regional hospitals lack the essential workforce and infrastructure to perform CDs. Multivariate regression including all FRUs performing deliveries demonstrated that presence of a functioning operating room (IRR = 21.0, 95%CI 7.9-55.8, p < 0.001) and the number of obstetrician-gynaecologists (IRR = 1.3, 95%CI 1.1-1.4, p = 0.001) and EmOCs (IRR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.3-1.9, p < 0.001) were associated with facility-level CD rates.
conclusionOnly 3.1% of the institutional childbirths in Bihar's FRUs were by CD. The presence of a functional operating room, obstetrician, and task-sharing provider (EmOC) was strongly associated with CD. These factors may represent initial investment priorities for scaling up CD rates in Bihar.
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.