Moi University Open Access Repository

Socioeconomic differences in caesarean section – are they explained by medical need? An analysis of patient record data of a large Kenyan hospital

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Van der Spek, Lisa
dc.contributor.author Sanglier, Sterre
dc.contributor.author Mabeya, Hillary M.
dc.contributor.author Van den Akker, Thomas
dc.contributor.author Mertens, Paul L. J. M.
dc.contributor.author Houweling, Tanja A. J.
dc.date.accessioned 2022-10-04T07:58:52Z
dc.date.available 2022-10-04T07:58:52Z
dc.date.issued 2020-07-08
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01215-2
dc.identifier.uri http://ir.mu.ac.ke:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/6880
dc.description.abstract Background: Caesarean section (C-section) rates are often low among the poor and very high among the better- off in low- and middle-income countries. We examined to what extent these differences are explained by medical need in an African context. Methods: We analyzed electronic records of 12,209 women who gave birth in a teaching hospital in Kenya in 2014. C-section rates were calculated by socioeconomic position (SEP), using maternal occupation (professional, small business, housewife, student) as indicator. We assessed if women had documented clinical indications according to hospital guidelines and if socioeconomic differences in C-section rates were explained by indication. Results: Indication for C-section according to hospital guidelines was more prevalent among professionals than housewives (16% vs. 9% of all births). The C-section rate was also higher among professionals than housewives (21.1% vs. 15.8% [OR 1.43; 95%CI 1.23–1.65]). This C-section rate difference was largely explained by indication (4.7 of the 5.3 percentage point difference between professionals and housewives concerned indicated C-sections, often with previous C-section as indication). Repeat C-sections were near-universal (99%). 43% of primary C-sections had no documented indication. Over-use was somewhat higher among professionals than housewives (C-section rate among women without indication: 6.6 and 5.5% respectively), which partly explained socioeconomic differences in primary C-section rate. Conclusions: Socioeconomic differences in C-section rates can be largely explained by unnecessary primary C- sections and higher supposed need due to previous C-section. Prevention of unnecessary primary C-sections and promoting safe trial of labor should be priorities in addressing C-section over-use and reducing inequalities. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Erasmus University Rotterdam Research en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher BMC en_US
dc.subject Delivery en_US
dc.subject Caesarean section en_US
dc.subject Maternity services en_US
dc.subject Developing countries en_US
dc.subject Obstetrics and gynaecology en_US
dc.subject Epidemiology en_US
dc.subject General obstetric en_US
dc.subject Pregnancy en_US
dc.subject Health equity en_US
dc.subject Socioeconomic factors en_US
dc.subject Clinical category en_US
dc.subject General obstetrics en_US
dc.title Socioeconomic differences in caesarean section – are they explained by medical need? An analysis of patient record data of a large Kenyan hospital en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account