Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis

Carine Ronsmans, Sara Holtz, Cynthia Stanton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Little is known about socioeconomic differences in access to life-saving obstetric surgery, yet access to a caesarean for women is essential to achieve low levels of maternal mortality. We examined population-based caesarean rates by socioeconomic groups in various developing countries. Methods: We used data from 42 Demographic and Health Surveys in sub-Saharan Africa, south and southeast Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. We report caesarean rates by wealth quintile and the absolute and relative difference between the richest and poorest quintiles. We also categorise the sample into richer and poorer halves and examine caesarean rates within rural areas. Findings: Caesarean rates were extremely low among the very poor: they were below 1% for the poorest 20% of the population in 20 countries and were below 1% for 80% of the population in six countries. Only in five countries did the very poor have caesarean rates exceeding 5%. At the other extreme are seven countries, mostly in Latin America, where caesareans are far in excess of the suggested maximum threshold of 15% for at least 40% of the population. Interpretation: In the poorest countries-mostly in sub-Saharan Africa-large segments of the population have almost no access to potentially life-saving caesareans, whereas in some mid-income countries more than half the population has rates in excess of medical need. These data deserve the immediate attention of policymakers at national and international levels.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1516-1523
Number of pages8
JournalLancet
Volume368
Issue number9546
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 28 2006

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this