↓ Skip to main content

Do free caesarean section policies increase inequalities in Benin and Mali?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do free caesarean section policies increase inequalities in Benin and Mali?
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0789-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marion Ravit, Martine Audibert, Valéry Ridde, Myriam De Loenzien, Clémence Schantz, Alexandre Dumont

Abstract

Benin and Mali introduced user fee exemption policies focused on caesarean sections (C-sections) in 2005 and 2009, respectively. These policies had a positive impact on access to C-sections and facility based deliveries among all women, but the impact on socioeconomic inequality is still highly uncertain. The objective of this study was to observe whether there was an increase or a decrease in urban/rural and socioeconomic inequalities in access to C-sections and facility based deliveries after the free C-section policy was introduced. We used data from three consecutive Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS): 2001, 2006 and 2011-2012 in Benin and 2001, 2006 and 2012-13 in Mali. We evaluated trends in inequality in terms of two outcomes: C-sections and facility based deliveries. Adjusted odds ratios were used to estimate whether the distributions of C-sections and facility based deliveries favoured the least advantaged categories (rural, non-educated and poorest women) or the most advantaged categories (urban, educated and richest women). Concentration curves were used to observe the degree of wealth-related inequality in access to C-sections and facility based deliveries. We analysed 47,302 childbirths (23,266 in Benin and 24,036 in Mali). In Benin, we found no significant difference in access to C-sections between urban and rural women or between educated and non-educated women. However, the richest women had greater access to C-sections than the poorest women. There was no significant change in these inequalities in terms of access to C-sections and facility based deliveries after introduction of the free C-section policy. In Mali, we found a reduction in education-related inequalities in access to C-sections after implementation of the policy (p-value = 0.043). Inequalities between urban and rural areas had already decreased prior to implementation of the policy, but wealth-related inequalities were still present. Urban/rural and socioeconomic inequalities in C-section access did not change substantially after the countries implemented free C-section policies. User fee exemption is not enough. We recommend switching to mechanisms that combine both a universal approach and targeted action for vulnerable populations to address this issue and ensure equal health care access for all individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 29 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Decision Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 29 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,859,600
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#289
of 1,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,794
of 329,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.