Search

Background: India has experienced a steep rise in institutional childbirth. The relative contributions of public and private sector facilities to emergency obstetric care (EmOC) has not been studied in this setting. This paper aims to study in three districts of Gujarat state, India:(a) the availability of EmOC facilities in the public and private sectors; (b) the availability and distribution of human resources for birth attendance in the two sectors; and (c) to benchmark the above against 2005 World Health Report benchmarks (WHR2005).Methods: A cross-sectional survey of obstetric care facilities reporting 30 or more births in the last three months was conducted (n = 159). Performance of EmOC signal functions and availability of human resources were assessed.Results: EmOC provision was dominated by private facilities (112/159) which were located mainly in district headquarters or small urban towns. The number of basic and comprehensive EmOC facilities was below WHR2005 benchmarks. A high number of private facilities performed C-sections but not all basic signal functions (72/159). Public facilities were the main EmOC providers in rural areas and 40/47 functioned at less than basic EmOC level. The rate of obstetricians per 1000 births was higher in the private sector.Conclusions: The private sector is the dominant EmOC provider in the state. Given the highly skewed distribution of facilities and resources in the private sector, state led partnerships with the private sector so that all women in the state receive care is important alongside strengthening the public sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Gujarat, India, a state led public private partnership scheme to promote facility birth named Chiranjeevi Yojana (CY) was implemented in 2005. Institutional birth is provided free of cost at accredited private health facilities to women from socially disadvantaged groups (eligible women). CY has contributed in increasing facility birth and providing substantially subsidized (but not totally free) birth care; however, the retention of mothers in this scheme in subsequent child birth is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a study aimed to determine the effect of previous utilization of the scheme and previous out of pocket expenditure on subsequent child birth among multiparous eligible women in Gujarat.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of multiparous eligible women (after excluding abortions and births at public facility). A structured questionnaire was administered by trained research assistant to those with recent delivery between Jan and Jul 2013. Outcome of interest was CY utilization in subsequent child birth (Jan-Jul 2013). Explanatory variables included socio-demographic characteristics (including category of eligibility), pregnancy related characteristics in previous child birth, before Jan 2013, (including CY utilization, out of pocket expenditure) and type of child birth in subsequent birth. A poisson regression model was used to assess the association of factors with CY utilization in subsequent child birth.Results: Of 997 multiparous eligible women, 289 (29%) utilized and 708 (71%) did not utilize CY in their previous child birth. Of those who utilized CY (n = 289), 182 (63%) subsequently utilized CY and 33 (11%) gave birth at home; whereas those who did not utilize CY (n = 708) had four times higher risk (40% vs. 11%) of subsequent child birth at home. In multivariable models, previous utilization of the scheme was significantly associated with subsequent utilization (adjusted Relative Risk (aRR): 2.7; 95% CI: 2.2-3.3), however previous out of pocket expenditure was not found to be associated with retention in the CY scheme.Conclusion: Women with previous CY utilization were largely retained; therefore, steps to increase uptake of CY are expected to increase retention of mothers within CY in their subsequent child birth. To understand the reasons for subsequent child birth at home despite previous CY utilization and previous zero/minimal out of pocket expenditure, future research in the form of systematic qualitative enquiry is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]