Elevation of cesarean delivery in Bangladesh: a ten-year follow up - - PDF document

elevation of cesarean delivery in bangladesh a ten year
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Elevation of cesarean delivery in Bangladesh: a ten-year follow up - - PDF document

Elevation of cesarean delivery in Bangladesh: a ten-year follow up study Shajratul Alam, M Moinuddin Haider, Mizanur Rahman, Nurul Alam, Dr. Quamrun Nahar 1 BACKGROUND A pregnant women is exposed to many risks that may put both lives of herself


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Elevation of cesarean delivery in Bangladesh: a ten-year follow up study

Shajratul Alam, M Moinuddin Haider, Mizanur Rahman, Nurul Alam, Dr. Quamrun Nahar

1 BACKGROUND

A pregnant women is exposed to many risks that may put both lives of herself and her unborn child into jeopardy. Even if she doesn’t show any sign of complication during pregnancy, the incidences of delivery complications cannot be avoided in some situation. With an aim to saving mother and child in risky cases (for example, when opening of cervix is blocked by placenta

  • r when the fetus position is not suitable for safe delivery) [25], physicians resort to cesarean

surgery (CS) - a major operation that involves cutting a mothers abdomen and taking out the child. Beyond such cases that involve medical indication, CS is said to be justified when a mother’s psychological health is involved [20]. CSs are considered safe and, in many situations obvious for life saving [8]. However, they do not carry additional benefit to the mothers who are eligible to have a normal vaginal delivery (NVD), otherwise known as natural births [12]. A mother, going through CS, is prone to greater risk of postpartum complication[2, 24]. She has to spend more days in the hospital and also needs longer recovery days compared to mother with a normal delivery [12]. Repeated CS puts the mother in greater risk of future pregnancy complications [19, 18]. The newborn goes through life threatening situation as well [26, 22]. It takes a large economic toll on patient’s family that accumulates with the charges of operation theatre, hospital lodging, engulfing expensive anti- biotic and drugs for avoiding risk of infection at the incision site etc. These expenses not only put pressure on the family but also on the economy of that country as a whole [21]. Such consequences (both economical and medical), however, couldn’t stall the acceleration

  • f CS rate worldwide [1]. Studies, trying to find the reason for such rise, found that – other

than medical emergencies, factors such as mother’s age, parity, obesity [27], previous CS [23],in what type of community the mother lives in [11], choice of caregiver [14] also plays vital role for up-taking of such decision. Mother’s own desire for CS in absence of any medical or clinical complexity also attributes to this rise [5, 13]. A growing concern for avoiding such un-welcomed (both medical and economical) harm has prompted World Health Organization (WHO) to sug- gest that number of CS per 100 births should not exceed 15 regardless of development status

  • f any country [15]. While WHO argues that this figure should be considered as a target to be

achieved [3], worldwide 18.6% births are being delivered by CS with rates fluctuating from 6% to 27.2% from least to most developed countries [1]. The percentage of births delivered by CS has been rising sharply in the last 10 years in Bangladesh - it has increased from 4% in 2004 to 23% in 2014 [16]. The scenario becomes worse when we see CS is the procedure of 6 in 10 deliveries in health facilities. It is evident that with the increase of facility delivery, from 12% in 2004 to 37% in 2014 [16], CS rate is also sloping

  • upward. While Bangladesh Demographic Health Survey reports give cross-section picture of

this trend for some specific years (2004, 2007, 2011 and 2014), in our study this is shown using 1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

a ten year follow-up surveillance data from Matlab [10]. This will allow us to rigorously analyze the trend from a population perspective in typical rural setting of Bangladesh - along with examining the different socio-demographic background of mothers going through the procedure.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Study area

Matlab Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) was established by icddr,b in 1966 [10]. It has has two distinct service provision zones - 1) icddr,b service area (SA) where icddr,b provides selected maternal and child health services -such as full-immunization, nutrition education and some other - parallel to government services since 1987 and 2) government SA where government provided health services are available. Along with this activity, in 1978, a hospital with four sub-centres was established in icddr,b SA to provide pregnant mother with basic essential obstetric care through a midwife and paramedic. These health care is also accessible to all mother of Matlab from Upazila Health Complex (UHC) and Union Health and Family Welfare Centre (UNFWC) provided by the government. Moreover, a District Hospital (DH) and a Maternal and Child Welfare Centre (MCWC) provide emergency obstetric care to mothers from both SA. These health facilities reside in Chandpur Town, forty minutes drive south of Matlab. From 2004 private sector contribution has also increased in Chandpur. Around 26 private hospital and clinics are now giving delivery care of varying degree [9] to the targeted population.

2.2 Data

After the establishment of HDSS, it has been registering births, deaths, migrations, marriages, pregnancy outcomes including live births, stillbirths, spontaneous and induced abortions. Data

  • n mothers ANC visits, place of delivery, mode of delivery, litter size and other selected informa-

tion are collected from mothers. Community Health Research Workers (CHRWs) collects these data using structured questionnaire through bimonthly visits of each household. The HDSS collects household socio-economic data like education of all individuals, household assets, and

  • ther characteristics through periodic censuses.

We accumulated data of all birth outcomes

  • ccurring in Matlab over 10 years of time period, 2005 to 2014. A mother may have several

birth outcomes during this period.

2.3 Methodology

First we explored the trend of facility delivery and CS across 2005 to 2014 with different demonimator. Then we focused on quantifying how different factors contribute to this rise through multiple logistic regression. We have controlled womens ANC pattern, place of delivery, education, husbands education, household wealth quintile, and experience of non-live birth in the regression model. For the analysis of CS delivery we have considered live births that took place in a facility where CS facility is available. It includes Upazila (sub-district) Health Complex, District Hospitals, and private clinics. Mothers with birth litter size more than one were also excluded from our analysis which accounts for less than 2% observations of our data.

3 RESULTS

During 2005 to 2014, 57469 pregnancies took place in Matlab HDSS. Eighty four percent of the pregnancy outcomes resulted in live births (n=48,622) and are considered for this study. Overall, 50% of births were delivered in facilities, ranging from 31% in 2005 to 69% in 2014 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Figure 1: Trend of facility delivery and CS of two SA in Matlab

Number of delivery per 100 live births

(Table 1). Caesarian section (CS) rate was expressed in two measures(a) CS rate per 100 live births and (b) CS rate per 100 facility deliveries which are shown in Table 1. In Matlab, there were 5.3 CSs per 100 deliveries in 2005. This rate increased over time and came close to the WHO recommended rate of needed CS (10-15%) of a country in 2009 and then it continued to a level of about 40% in 2014. Of those births that were delivered in facilities, there were 54 CSs per 100 facility deliveries in 2005 and sharply increased over time and reached an alarmingly high rate over 80% in 2014 (Table 1). A huge gap is noted for the CS rate between government facility and private facility. A mother is more likely to have CS if she is to deliver her baby in a private facility than in a government facility. The CS rate is increasing for both government and private facilities. A pictorial view of this rising trend is shown in Figure

  • 1. The facility delivery rate has

always been high in icddr,b SA during the period of the study. However, rate of CS is becoming prevalent as well with both SA crossing the WHO recommended rate for any region. More or less 4 out of 10 mothers are now going through this intensive surgery. 3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Table 1: Distribution of place of delivery and mode of delivery in Matlab

Year of birth Number of live births Facility deliveries per 100 live births CSs per 100 live births CSs per 100 facility deliveries CSs per 100 facility deliveries Government Private 2005 5092 31.2 5.3 54.3 38.6 68.0 2006 5044 35.5 7.1 62.5 50.2 69.8 2007 4997 37.2 10.0 60.8 39.7 73.6 2008 4990 43.6 11.0 64.4 39.2 77.8 2009 4622 51.4 14.5 69.2 42.8 80.2 2010 4775 55.4 19.1 71.3 42.6 80.3 2011 4759 58.5 23.5 73.2 35.2 81.3 2012 4756 61.8 28.6 77.9 55.0 84.8 2013 4682 64.7 33.1 82.2 60.2 87.3 2014 4905 68.9 39.2 82.9 55.9 87.2 Overall 48622 50.5 18.9 73.8 46.7 82.4

Logistic regression analysis shows that both facility delivery and CS delivery have sharply increased over time (Table 2). They are higher in icddr,b SA than in government SA. CS is higher in private facilities than government facilities. Receiving ANC in all three trimesters and at least in last two trimesters, older age pregnancy, having a non-live birth, womens and her husbands higher education and higher wealth quintiles all are favorable to both facility delivery and CS delivery. Odds of facility delivery is 15 percent lower and odds of CS delivery is 20 percent lower among women who delivered before age 20 compared to the women delivered in 20-24 years of age. No difference exists in facility delivery and CS delivery between women with no education and primary education. This result is same for husbands education. First time mothers are more likely to have both facility and CS delivery compared to mothers who already have had at least one child. Marginal probabiliy of having CS delivery across different age-group of women is explored in Figure 2. We see that first time mother’s are bending toward CS irrespective of their age. Type

  • f facility plays a major role as mothers are more likely to have the surgery if she delivers at

private facility in comparison to government facility. Almost all late age deliveries of nulliparous women result in CS. 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Table 2: Distribution of place of delivery and mode of delivery in Matlab List of covariate Odds ratio Facility Delivery Cesarean delivery Year of birth (RC = 2005-2006) 2007-2008 1.434*** 1.180* 2009-2010 2.416*** 1.534*** 2011-2012 3.269 1.865*** 2013-2014 4.709*** 2.765*** Place of delivery (RC = Govt. facility) Private facility

  • 4.341***

Service area (RC = Government area) icddr,b 6.385 1.864*** ANC visits (RC = ANC only in 2nd and 3rd trimester, not in first) No ANC 0.256*** 0.943 No ANC in 2nd and 3rd trimester 0.513*** 0.786*** ANC in all three trimesters 1.510*** 1.005 Age of mother at birth (RC=20-24) ¡20 0.847*** 0.802*** 25-29 1.272*** 1.239*** 30-34 1.489*** 1.511*** 35-39 1.888*** 1.596*** 40+ 1.689*** 1.493* Child ever born (RC = 1) 2 0.522*** 0.771*** 3+ 0.360*** 0.522*** Ever had non-live birth (RC = No) Yes 1.313*** 1.190*** Mother’s education (RC = No education) Primary 1.012 0.995 Secondary 1.236*** 1.035 Above secondary 3.357*** 1.306 Wealth quintile (RC = Lowest) Second 1.215*** 1.242*** Third 1.368*** 1.366*** Fourth 1.639*** 1.482*** Highest 2.405*** 1.629*** Number of observations 48622 12465

***-p < 0.01;**p < 0.05

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Figure 2: Marginal probability of CS across time for different age group (a) Government SA

.25 .5 .75 1 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14

20-24 25-29 30-34

Single parity, DH/UHC Single parity, Clinic/nursing home Parity > 1, UHC/DH Parity > 1, Clinic/nursing home Pr(CS) Birth event year (b) icddr,b SA

.25 .5 .75 1 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14

20-24 25-29 30-34 Single parity, DH/UHC Single parity, Clinic/nursing home Parity >1, DH/UHC Parity >1, Clinic/nursing home Pr(CS) Birth event year 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

4 DISCUSSION

Advent of cesarean section (CS) in child birth has been nothing short of a blessing upon the life of a mother and her child. However, this blessing of modern medical science, if applied for convenience rather than emergency, is sure to bring negative health consequences[18, 17, 22] along with economic burden [4] in the long run. Primary CS is one of the major contributor of this high trend [23]. Our study also revealed that CS rate in facility among first time mothers are also ascending. As a result repeated CS is almost inevitable. Choice of facility - private

  • r government, is another important factor. Mothers are at more risk of delivering through CS

if it takes place in private rather than in government facility. This difference due to facility type is also evident in some other countries - one example is Ethiopia, where CS rate in private

  • vs. public is quite large (46% and 15% respectively) [6]. While Bangladesh struggles to ensure

facility delivery, this event of rise in CS is quite alarming. It effects not only the reproductive health of a mother but also the health of the newborn. Rather than spending resources into unnecessary surgeries for a single mother, it will be more wise to use them for ensuring medical care for those mother and newborn who is actually at risk [7]. 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

References

[1] F. Althabe, C. Sosa, J. M. Beliz´ an, L. Gibbons, F. Jacquerioz, and E. Bergel. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological

  • study. Birth, 33(4):270–277, 2006.

[2] J. M. Beliz´ an, F. Althabe, and M. L. Cafferata. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology, 18(4):485–486, 2007. [3] A. Betran, M. Torloni, J. Zhang, and A. G¨

  • ulmezoglu. Who statement on caesarean section rates.

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 123(5):667–670, 2016. [4] C. Campbell. Elective cesarean delivery. Nursing for women’s health, 15(4):308–319, 2011. [5] K. Efekhar and P. Steer. Caesarean section controversy. women choose caesarean section. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 320(7241):1073–author, 2000. [6] N. Fesseha, A. Getachew, M. Hiluf, Y. Gebrehiwot, and P. Bailey. A national review of cesarean delivery in ethiopia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 115(1):106–111, 2011. [7] L. Gibbons, J. M. Beliz´ an, J. A. Lauer, A. P. Betr´ an, M. Merialdi, F. Althabe, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year:

  • veruse as a barrier to universal coverage. World health report, 30:1–31, 2010.

[8] M. E. Hannah, W. J. Hannah, S. A. Hewson, E. D. Hodnett, S. Saigal, A. R. Willan, and T. B. T.

  • Collaborative. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at

term: a randomised multicentre trial. The Lancet, 356(9239):1375–1383, 2000. [9] F. A. Huda, A. Ahmed, S. K. Dasgupta, M. Jahan, J. Ferdous, M. Koblinsky, C. Ronsmans, and

  • M. E. Chowdhury. Profile of maternal and foetal complications during labour and delivery among

women giving birth in hospitals in matlab and chandpur, bangladesh. Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 30(2):131, 2012. [10] B. ICDDR. Health and demographic surveillance system, matlab: Registration of health and demo- graphic events (1983–2005), 2006. [11] T. Leone, S. S. Padmadas, and Z. Matthews. Community factors affecting rising caesarean section rates in developing countries: an analysis of six countries. Social science & medicine, 67(8):1236– 1246, 2008. [12] S. Liu, R. M. Liston, K. Joseph, M. Heaman, R. Sauve, M. S. Kramer, M. H. S. G. of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low- risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Canadian medical association journal, 176(4):455–460, 2007. [13] J. C. Lo. Patients attitudes vs. physicians determination: implications for cesarean sections. Social Science & Medicine, 57(1):91–96, 2003. [14] D. A. Luthy, J. A. Malmgren, and R. W. Zingheim. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 191(5):1511– 1515, 2004. [15] B. Moore. Appropriate technology for birth. The Lancet, 326(8458):787, 1985. [16] National Institute of Population Research and Training, Mitra and Associates, The DHS Program. Bangladesh demographic and health survey 2014. Technical report, 2014. [17] L. Penna and S. Arulkumaran. Cesarean section for non-medical reasons. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 82(3):399–409, 2003. [18] M. G. Phipps, B. Watabe, J. L. Clemons, S. Weitzen, and D. L. Myers. Risk factors for bladder injury during cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 105(1):156–160, 2005. [19] G. R. Qazi and S. Akhtar. Obstetrical correlates of the first time cesarean section, compared with the repeated cesarean section. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons–Pakistan: JCPSP, 17(10):611–614, 2007.

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

[20] E. L. Ryding. Investigation of 33 women who demanded a cesarean section for personal reasons. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 72(4):280–285, 1993. [21] E. L. Shearer. Cesarean section: medical benefits and costs. Social science & medicine, 37(10):1223– 1231, 1993. [22] P. J. Steer and N. Modi. Elective caesarean sectionsrisks to the infant. The Lancet, 374(9691):675– 676, 2009. [23] S. M. Taffel, P. J. Placek, and T. Liss. Trends in the united states cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise. American journal of public health, 77(8):955–959, 1987. [24] J. Villar, G. Carroli, N. Zavaleta, A. Donner, D. Wojdyla, A. Faundes, A. Velazco, V. Bataglia,

  • A. Langer, A. Narv´

aez, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. Bmj, 335(7628):1025, 2007. [25] R. Weiner, C. Ronsmans, E. Dorman, H. Jilo, A. Muhoro, and C. Shulman. Labour complications remain the most important risk factors for perinatal mortality in rural kenya. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81(8):561–566, 2003. [26] J. Ye, J. Zhang, R. Mikolajczyk, M. Torloni, A. G¨ ulmezoglu, and A. Betran. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG: An International Journal of Ob- stetrics & Gynaecology, 123(5):745–753, 2016. [27] T. K. Young and B. Woodmansee. Factors that are associated with cesarean delivery in a large private practice: the importance of prepregnancy body mass index and weight gain. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 187(2):312–320, 2002.

9