Excess neonatal mortality among private facility births in rural parts of high-mortality states of India: Demographic analysis of a national survey

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Diane Coffey , Nikhil Srivastav , Aditi Priya , Asmita Verma , Nathan Franz , Alok Kumar , Dean Spears
{"title":"Excess neonatal mortality among private facility births in rural parts of high-mortality states of India: Demographic analysis of a national survey","authors":"Diane Coffey ,&nbsp;Nikhil Srivastav ,&nbsp;Aditi Priya ,&nbsp;Asmita Verma ,&nbsp;Nathan Franz ,&nbsp;Alok Kumar ,&nbsp;Dean Spears","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Almost one-fourth of neonatal deaths occur in India, many of them in the Empowered Action Group (EAG) states. Research has compared facility births with home births, with limited investigation of mortality differences between births at public and private facilities. We ask how early-life mortality in the rural population of the EAG states and the rest of India differs according to the setting of birth. We consider whether quality of care can help explain the differences we find. Using rural births in India's 2019-21 Demographic and Health Survey, we find that in the rural population of EAG states, neonatal mortality among private facility births is 44 per 1000 (95 % CI: 40–48), compared with 29 per 1000 in public facilities (95 % CI: 27–30) and 38 per 1000 for home births (95 % CI: 34–41). Standardization by socioeconomic status increases the public-private gap. These differences persist even stratifying on key predictors of neonatal mortality. The excess mortality among births to the rural population in private facilities, compared with public facilities, accounts for about 43,000 excess neonatal deaths annually in EAG states. Evidence suggests that low-quality care is among the important causes. Most births in India now occur in facilities. Many happen in private facilities run by providers who lack training, resources, and legal permission. The quality of private health facilities serving the rural EAG population appears to be particularly poor.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"379 ","pages":"Article 118158"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625004885","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Almost one-fourth of neonatal deaths occur in India, many of them in the Empowered Action Group (EAG) states. Research has compared facility births with home births, with limited investigation of mortality differences between births at public and private facilities. We ask how early-life mortality in the rural population of the EAG states and the rest of India differs according to the setting of birth. We consider whether quality of care can help explain the differences we find. Using rural births in India's 2019-21 Demographic and Health Survey, we find that in the rural population of EAG states, neonatal mortality among private facility births is 44 per 1000 (95 % CI: 40–48), compared with 29 per 1000 in public facilities (95 % CI: 27–30) and 38 per 1000 for home births (95 % CI: 34–41). Standardization by socioeconomic status increases the public-private gap. These differences persist even stratifying on key predictors of neonatal mortality. The excess mortality among births to the rural population in private facilities, compared with public facilities, accounts for about 43,000 excess neonatal deaths annually in EAG states. Evidence suggests that low-quality care is among the important causes. Most births in India now occur in facilities. Many happen in private facilities run by providers who lack training, resources, and legal permission. The quality of private health facilities serving the rural EAG population appears to be particularly poor.
印度高死亡率邦农村地区私人设施分娩的新生儿死亡率过高:一项全国调查的人口统计分析
几乎四分之一的新生儿死亡发生在印度,其中许多发生在赋权行动小组(EAG)各邦。研究比较了设施分娩和在家分娩,对公立和私立设施分娩死亡率差异的调查有限。我们的问题是,东亚运动会各邦和印度其他地区农村人口的早期生命死亡率如何根据出生环境而有所不同。我们考虑护理质量是否有助于解释我们发现的差异。利用印度2019-21年人口与健康调查中的农村出生情况,我们发现,在东非共同体各邦的农村人口中,私人设施分娩的新生儿死亡率为千分之44(95%置信区间:40-48),而公共设施分娩的新生儿死亡率为千分之29(95%置信区间:27-30),家庭分娩的新生儿死亡率为千分之38(95%置信区间:34-41)。社会经济地位的标准化增加了公私差距。这些差异甚至在新生儿死亡率的关键预测因素上仍然存在。与公共设施相比,农村人口在私立设施中的出生死亡率过高,这导致东澳运动会各邦每年新生儿死亡人数多出约43 000人。有证据表明,低质量的护理是其中一个重要原因。印度现在的大多数分娩都在设施中进行。许多病例发生在由缺乏培训、资源和法律许可的提供者经营的私人设施中。为农村eeg人口提供服务的私人保健设施的质量似乎特别差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信