Interfacility transfer of pregnant women using publicly funded emergency call centre-based ambulance services: a cross-sectional analysis of service logs from five states in India.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of interfacility transfers (IFTs) transported by '108' ambulances and to compare the characteristics of the IFTs and non-IFTs to understand the pattern of use of '108' services for pregnant women in India. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of '108' ambulance records from five states for the period April 2013 to March 2014. Data were obtained from the call centre database for the pregnant women, who called '108'. MAIN OUTCOMES: Proportion of all pregnancies and institutional deliveries in the population who were transported by '108', both overall and for IFT. Characteristics of the women transported; obstetric emergencies, the distances travelled and the time taken for both IFT and non-IFT. RESULTS: The '108' ambulances transported 6 08 559 pregnant women, of whom 34 993 were IFTs (5.8%) in the five states. We estimated that '108' transferred 16.5% of all pregnancies and 20.8% of institutional deliveries. Only 1.2% of all institutional deliveries in the population were transported by '108' for IFTs-lowest 0.6% in Gujarat and highest 3.0% in Himachal Pradesh. Of all '108' IFTs, only 8.4% had any pregnancy complication. For all states combined, on adjusted analysis, IFTs were more likely than non-IFTs to be for older and younger women or from urban areas, and less likely to be for women from high-priority districts, from backward or scheduled castes, or women below the poverty line. Obstetric emergencies were more than twice as likely to be IFTs as pregnant women without obstetric emergencies (OR=2.18, 95% CI 2.09 to 2.27). There was considerable variation across states. CONCLUSION: Only 6% institutional deliveries made use of the '108' ambulance for IFTs in India. The vast majority did not have any complication or emergency. The '108' service may need to consider strategies to prioritise the transfer of women with obstetric emergency and those requiring IFT, over uncomplicated non-IFT.

Incidence and determinants of hysterectomy in a low-income setting in Gujarat, India.

Hysterectomy is a leading reason for use of health insurance amongst low-income women in India, but there are limited population-level data available to inform policy. This paper reports on the findings of a mixed-methods study to estimate incidence and identify predictors of hysterectomy in a low-income setting in Gujarat, India. The estimated incidence of hysterectomy, 20.7/1000 woman- years (95% CI: 14.0, 30.8), was considerably higher than reported from other countries, at a relatively low mean age of 36 years. There was strong evidence that among women of reproductive age, those with lower income and at least two children underwent hysterectomy at higher rates. Nearly two-thirds of women undergoing hysterectomy utilized private hospitals, while the remainder used government or other non-profit facilities. Qualitative research suggested that weak sexual and reproductive health services, a widespread perception that the post-reproductive uterus is dispensable and lack of knowledge of side effects have resulted in the normalization of hysterectomy. Hysterectomy appears to be promoted as a first or second-line treatment for menstrual and gynaecological disorders that are actually amenable to less invasive procedures. Most women sought at least two medical opinions prior to hysterectomy, but both public and private providers lacked equipment, skills and motivation to offer alternatives. Profit and training benefits also appeared to play a role in some providers' behaviour. Although women with insecure employment underwent the procedure knowing the financial and physical implications of undergoing a major surgery, the future health and work security afforded by hysterectomy appeared to them to outweigh risks. Findings suggest that sterilization may be associated with an increased risk of hysterectomy, potentially through biological or attitudinal links. Health policy interventions require improved access to sexual and reproductive health services and health education, along with surveillance and medical audits to promote high-quality choices for women through the life cycle.

A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012.

BACKGROUND: The priorities of research funding bodies govern the research agenda, which has important implications for the provision of evidence to inform policy. This study examines the research funding landscape for maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: This review draws on a database of 2340 academic papers collected through a large-scale systematic mapping of research on maternal health interventions in LMICs published from 2000-2012. The names of funders acknowledged on each paper were extracted and categorised into groups. It was noted whether support took a specific form, such as staff fellowships or drugs. Variations between funder types across regions and topics of research were assessed. RESULTS: Funding sources were only reported in 1572 (67%) of articles reviewed. A high number of different funders (685) were acknowledged, but only a few dominated funding of published research. Bilateral funders, national research agencies and private foundations were most prominent, while private companies were most commonly acknowledged for support 'in kind'. The intervention topics and geographic regions of research funded by the various funder types had much in common, with HIV being the most common topic and sub-Saharan Africa being the most common region for all types of funder. Publication outputs rose substantially for several funder types over the period, with the largest increase among bilateral funders. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of organisations provide funding for maternal health research, but a handful account for most funding acknowledgements. Broadly speaking, these organisations address similar topics and regions. This suggests little coordination between funding agencies, risking duplication and neglect of some areas of maternal health research, and limiting the ability of organisations to develop the specialised skills required for systematically addressing a research topic. Greater transparency in reporting of funding is required, as the role of funders in the research process is often unclear.