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]

Background: A cross-national comparison of Belgian and Dutch childbearing women allows us to gain insight into the relative importance of pain acceptance and personal control in pain relief in 2 maternity care models. Although Belgium and the Netherlands are neighbouring countries sharing the same language, political system and geography, they are characterised by a different organisation of health care, particularly in maternity care. In Belgium the medical risks of childbirth are emphasised but neutralised by a strong belief in the merits of the medical model. Labour pain is perceived as a needless inconvenience easily resolved by means of pain medication. In the Netherlands the midwifery model of care defines childbirth as a normal physiological process and family event. Labour pain is perceived as an ally in the birth process. Methods: Women were invited to participate in the study by independent midwives and obstetricians during antenatal visits in 2004-2005. Two questionnaires were filled out by 611 women, one at 30 weeks of pregnancy and one within the first 2 weeks after childbirth either at home or in a hospital. However, only women having a hospital birth without obstetric intervention (N = 327) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression analysis has been performed. Results: Labour pain acceptance and personal control in pain relief render pain medication use during labour less likely, especially if they occur together. Apart from this general result, we also find large country differences. Dutch women with a normal hospital birth are six times less likely to use pain medication during labour, compared to their Belgian counterparts. This country difference cannot be explained by labour pain acceptance, since - in contrast to our working hypothesis - Dutch and Belgian women giving birth in a hospital setting are characterised by a similar labour pain acceptance. Our findings suggest that personal control in pain relief can partially explain the country differences in coping with labour pain. For Dutch women we find that the use of pain medication is lowest if women experience control over the reception of pain medication and have a positive attitude towards labour pain. In Belgium however, not personal control over the use of pain relief predicts the use of pain medication, but negative attitudes towards labour. Conclusions: Apart from individual level determinants, such as length of labour or pain acceptance, our findings suggest that the maternity care context is of major importance in the study of the management of labour pain. The pain medication use in Belgian hospital maternity care is high and is very sensitive to negative attitudes towards labour pain. In the Netherlands, on the contrary, pain medication use is already low. This can partially be explained by a low degree of personal control in pain relief, especially when co-occurring with positive pain attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]