Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Mar 23;10(3):e0120309.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120309. eCollection 2015.

Trends and inequities in use of maternal health care services in Bangladesh, 1991-2011

Iqbal Anwar  1 , Herfina Y Nababan  1 , Shabnam Mostari  2 , Aminur Rahman  1 , Jahangir A M Khan  1
Affiliations

Trends and inequities in use of maternal health care services in Bangladesh, 1991-2011

Iqbal Anwar et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background and methods: Monitoring use-inequity is important to measure progress in efforts to address health-inequities. Using data from six Bangladesh Demographic and Health Surveys (BDHS), we examine trends, inequities and socio-demographic determinants of use of maternal health care services in Bangladesh between 1991 and 2011.

Findings: Access to maternal health care services has improved in the last two decades. The adjusted yearly trend was 9.0% (8.6%-9.5%) for any antenatal care (ANC), 11.9% (11.1%-12.7%) for institutional delivery, and 18.9% (17.3%-20.5%) for C-section delivery which is above the WHO recommended rate of 5-15%. Use-inequity was significant for all three indicators but is reducing over time. Between 1991-1994 and 2007-2011 the rich:poor ratio reduced from 3.65 to 1.65 for ANC and from 15.80 to 6.77 for institutional delivery. Between 1995-1998 and 2007-2011, the concentration index reduced from 0.27 (0.25-0.29) to 0.15 (0.14-0.16) for ANC, and from 0.65 (0.60-0.71) to 0.39 (0.37-0.41) for institutional delivery during that period. For use of c-section, the rich:poor ratio reduced from 18.17 to 13.39 and the concentration index from 0.66 (0.57-0.75) to 0.47 (0.45-0.49). In terms of rich:poor differences, there was equity-gain for ANC but not for facility delivery or C-section delivery. All socio-demographic variables were significant predictors of use; of them, maternal education was the most powerful. In addition, the contribution of for-profit private sector is increasingly growing in maternal health.

Conclusion: Both access and equity are improving in maternal health. We recommend strengthening ongoing health and non-health interventions for the poor. Use-inequity should be monitored using multiple indicators which are incorporated into routine health information systems. Rising C-section rate is alarming and indication of C-sections should be monitored both in private and public sector facilities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Trend in use of ANC, facility delivery and C-section1991–2011.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Distribution of place of delivery over time.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Inequity in use of antenatal care over time.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Inequity in use of facility delivery over time.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Inequity in use of C-Section over time.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. AbouZahr C, Wardlaw T. Maternal mortality at the end of a decade: signs of progress? Bulletin of World Health Organization. 2001; 79: 561–568. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ronsmans C, Campbell OM, McDermott J, Koblinsky M. Questioning the indicators of need for obstetric care. Bulletin of World Health Organization. 2002; 80: 317–324. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gwatkin DR. Assessing inequalities in maternal mortality. The Lancet. 2004; 363: 5. - PubMed
    1. Ronsmans C, Graham WJ. Maternal mortality: who, when, where, and why. The Lancet. 2006; 368: 1189–1200. - PubMed
    1. Kunst AE, Houweling T. A global picture of poor-rich differences in the utilisation of delivery care. Safe motherhood strategies: a review of the evidence. 2000; 17: 297–315.

Publication types