Assessment of Variation in Cesarean Delivery Rates Between Public and Private Health Facilities in India From 2005 to 2016
Open accessAbstract
Importance: The rates of cesarean deliveries have more than doubled in India, from 8% of deliveries in 2005 to 17% of deliveries in 2016. The World Health Organization recommends that cesarean deliveries should not exceed 10% to 15% of all deliveries in any country. An understanding of the association of private and public facilities with the increase in cesarean delivery rates in India is needed. Objective: To assess the association of public vs private sector health care facilities with cesarean delivery rates in India and to estimate the potential cost savings if private sector facilities followed World Health Organization recommendation for cesarean deliveries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used institutional delivery data from the representative National Family Health Survey (NFHS) in India, including data from the NFHS-1 (1992-1993), the NFHS-3 (2005-2006), and the NFHS-4 (2015-2016). The NFHS-3 and NFHS-4 provided data on 22 647 deliveries and 195 366 deliveries, respectively. The NHFS-4 was the first survey to provide data on out-of-pocket expenditures for delivery by facility type, allowing for a comparison of cesarean deliveries and costs between public and private facilities. The primary sample comprised all pregnant women who delivered infants in public and private institutional facilities in India and who were included the NFHS-3 and the NFHS-4; data on pregnant women who were included in the NFHS-1 were used for comparison. The study's findings were analyzed through geographic mapping, data tabulation, funnel plots, multivariate logistic regression analyses, and potential cost-savings scenario analyses. Data were analyzed from June to December 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the rate of cesarean deliveries by facility type (public vs private) and by participant socioeconomic, demographic, and health characteristics. Secondary outcomes were the potential number of avoidable cesarean deliveries and the potential cost savings if private sector facilities followed the World Health Organization recommendations for cesarean deliveries. Results: In the NFHS-3, 22 610 total births occurred at institutional facilities. Of those, 2178 births (15.2%) were cesarean deliveries in public facilities, and 3200 births (27.9%) were cesarean deliveries in private facilities. Of 195 366 total institutional births in the NFHS-4, 15 165 births (11.9%) were cesarean deliveries in public facilities, and 20 506 births (40.9%) were cesarean deliveries in private facilities. The cesarean delivery rate in public health facilities increased from 7.2% in the NFHS-1 to 11.9% in the NFHS-4, whereas in private health facilities, the rate increased from 12.3% to 40.9% during the same period. A substantial increase was found in cesarean delivery rates between the NFHS-3 (2005-2006) and the NFHS-4 (2015-2016), with 22 states exceeding the World Health Organization's upper threshold of 15% in the NFHS-4. The odds ratio for cesarean deliveries in private facilities compared with public facilities increased from 1.62 (95% CI, 1.49-1.76) in the NFHS-3 to 4.17 (95% CI, 4.04-4.30) in the NFHS-4. The number of avoidable cesarean deliveries would have been 1.83 million, with a potential cost savings of $320.60 million, if private sector facilities in India had followed the 15% threshold for cesarean delivery rates recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, private sector health facilities were associated with a substantial increase in cesarean deliveries in India. Further research is needed to assess the factors underlying the increase in cesarean deliveries in private sector facilities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The rise of C-section deliveries has been attributed to commercial interests of private facilities.
“The rise of C-section deliveries has also been attributed to commercial interests of private facilities”
From "Everywhere you see, C-sections are happening": examining trends and reasons for a rise in cesarean-section deliveries among women in urban informal settlements, Mumbai Metropolitan Region, using a mixed methods approach (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The Discussion (page not provided) links rising cesarean rates to private facilities and says nonmedical factors likely play a role. The Discussion > Limitations proposes changing financial incentives for private facilities, but the paper does not specifically attribute the rise to their commercial interests. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHigh section rates among those accessing public facilities point to the need to look beyond the public-private dichotomy in analyzing a rise in C-sections.
“High section rates among those accessing public facilities then points to the need to look beyond the public-private dichotomy [3, 16] in analyzing a rise in C-sections.”
From "Everywhere you see, C-sections are happening": examining trends and reasons for a rise in cesarean-section deliveries among women in urban informal settlements, Mumbai Metropolitan Region, using a mixed methods approach (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The Discussion (page not available) reports that cesarean delivery rates in public facilities rose from 7.2% to 11.9%, supporting the point that the rise was not confined to private facilities. It does not characterize the public-facility rate as high; its emphasis is the much larger increase in private facilities, to 40.9%. The call to look beyond the public–private dichotomy is the citing authors’ interpretation, not an explicit conclusion of this paper. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWomen in these settlements who underwent C-sections primarily accessed public facilities.
“While rising C-section rates have long been attributed to private facilities [15, 16], women in these settlements who underwent C-sections primarily accessed public facilities.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 91
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- [1]Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018; 392(10155): 1341- 1348. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7 30322584 · DOI
- [2]Harrison MS, Goldenberg RL Cesarean section in sub-Saharan Africa. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2016; 2: 6. doi: 10.1186/s40748-016-0033-x 27398224 PMC4937522 · DOI
- [3]MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol. 2008; 35(2): 293- 307. doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2008.03.007 18456070 · DOI
- [4]Macfarlane AJ, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD,; Euro-Peristat Scientific Committee Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2016; 123(4): 559- 568. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13284 25753683 · DOI
- [6]Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet. 2017; 390(10090): 156- 168. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5 28077234 PMC5708862 · DOI
- [7]Wendland CL The vanishing mother: cesarean section and “evidence-based obstetrics”. Med Anthropol Q. 2007; 21(2): 218- 233. doi: 10.1525/maq.2007.21.2.218 17601085 · DOI
- [8]Baskett TF, McMillen RM Cesarean section: trends and morbidity. CMAJ. 1981; 125(7): 723- 726. 7326654 PMC1862416
- [9]Sachs BP, McCarthy BJ, Rubin G, Burton A, Terry J, Tyler CW Jr Cesarean section. risk and benefits for mother and fetus. JAMA. 1983; 250(16): 2157- 2159. doi: 10.1001/jama.1983.03340160043029 6620519 · DOI
- [10]Hall MH Variation in caesarean section rate. maternal mortality higher after caesarean section. BMJ. 1994; 308(6929): 654- 655. 8148727 PMC2539750
- [11]Danforth DN Cesarean section. JAMA. 1985; 253(6): 811- 818. doi: 10.1001/jama.1985.03350300099029 3881613 · DOI
- [12]Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D,; WHO 2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006; 367(9525): 1819- 1829. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68704-7 16753484 · DOI
- [14]Hung H-W, Yang P-Y, Yan Y-H, Jou H-J, Lu M-C, Wu S-C Increased postpartum maternal complications after cesarean section compared with vaginal delivery in 225 304 Taiwanese women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(10): 1665- 1672. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1059806 26135778 · DOI
- [15]Zhang T, Sidorchuk A, Sevilla-Cermeno L, Association of cesarean delivery with risk of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders in the offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2(8): e1910236. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10236 31461150 PMC6716295 · DOI
- [16]Hopkins K Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med. 2000; 51(5): 725- 740. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00480-3 10975232 · DOI
- [17]Kuhle S, Tong OS, Woolcott CG Association between caesarean section and childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2015; 16(4): 295- 303. doi: 10.1111/obr.12267 25752886 · DOI
- [18]Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(1): e1002494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494 29360829 PMC5779640 · DOI
- [19]Thavagnanam S, Fleming J, Bromley A, Shields MD, Cardwell CR A meta-analysis of the association between caesarean section and childhood asthma. Clin Exp Allergy. 2008; 38(4): 629- 633. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02780.x 18352976 · DOI · Paper page
- [20]Cardwell CR, Stene LC, Joner G, Caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Diabetologia. 2008; 51(5): 726- 735. doi: 10.1007/s00125-008-0941-z 18292986 · DOI · Paper page
- [21]Curran EA, O’Neill SM, Cryan JF, Research review: birth by caesarean section and development of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015; 56(5): 500- 508. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12351 25348074 · DOI · Paper page
- [22]Marcotte EL, Thomopoulos TP, Infante-Rivard C, Caesarean delivery and risk of childhood leukaemia: a pooled analysis from the Childhood Leukemia International Consortium (CLIC). Lancet Haematol. 2016; 3(4): e176- e185. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(16)00002-8 27063976 PMC5283076 · DOI
- [24]Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210(3): 179- 193. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026 24565430 · DOI
- [25]Gilbert SA, Grobman WA, Landon MB,; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network Cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after previous cesarean in a minimally biased cohort. Am J Perinatol. 2013; 30(1): 11- 20. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1333206 23292916 PMC4049080 · DOI
- [29]Mishra US, Ramanathan M Delivery-related complications and determinants of caesarean section rates in India. Health Policy Plan. 2002; 17(1): 90- 98. doi: 10.1093/heapol/17.1.90 11861590 · DOI
- [30]Padmadas SS, Kumar S, Nair SB, Kumari A Caesarean section delivery in Kerala, India: evidence from a National Family Health Survey. Soc Sci Med. 2000; 51(4): 511- 521. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00491-8 10868667 · DOI
- [31]Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321(4): 233- 239. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198907273210406 2747759 · DOI
- [32]Hurst M, Summey PS Childbirth and social class: the case of cesarean delivery. Soc Sci Med. 1984; 18(8): 621- 631. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(84)90290-9 6374910 · DOI
- [33]Janowitz B, Wallace S, Araujo G, Araujo L Referrals by traditional birth attendants in northeast Brazil. Am J Public Health. 1985; 75(7): 745- 748. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.75.7.745 4003649 PMC1646301 · DOI
- [35]Brugha R, Pritze-Aliassime S Promoting safe motherhood through the private sector in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2003; 81(8): 616- 623. 14576894 PMC2572515
- [36]Thadani KB Public private partnership in the health sector: boon or bane. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014; 157: 307- 316. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.033 · DOI
- [37]Gupta I, Bhatia M The Indian Health Care System In: Mossialos E, Djordjevic A, Osborn R, Sarnak D, eds. International Profiles of Health Care Systems. The Commonwealth Fund; 2017: 77- 84. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2017_may_mossialos_intl_profiles_v5.pdf
- [38]Bhatia M The Indian Health Care System, 2015 In: Mossialos E, Wenzl M, Osborn R, Sarnak D, eds. 2015 International Profiles of Health Care Systems. The Commonwealth Fund; 2016: 77- 85. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2016_jan_1857_mossialos_intl_profiles_2015_v7.pdf
- [41]Magne F, Puchi Silva A, Carvajal B, Gotteland M The elevated rate of cesarean section and its contribution to non-communicable chronic diseases in Latin America: the growing involvement of the microbiota. Front Pediatr. 2017; 5: 192. doi: 10.3389/fped.2017.00192 28929093 PMC5591430 · DOI
- [42]Chen C-S, Liu T-C, Chen B, Lin C-L The failure of financial incentive? the seemingly inexorable rise of cesarean section. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 101: 47- 51. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.010 24560223 · DOI
- [43]Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gulmezoglu AM; WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016; 123(5): 667- 670. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13526 26681211 PMC5034743 · DOI · Paper page
- [44]Betran AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018; 392(10155): 1358- 1368. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31927-5 30322586 · DOI
- Authors
- Bhatia, M., Banerjee, K., Dixit, P., & Dwivedi, L. K.
- Affiliations
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- International Institute for Population Sciences (IN)
- Tata Institute of Social Sciences (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Bhatia, Mrigesh
- Venue
- JAMA Network Open
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2020-08-28
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e2015022
- ISSN
- 2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7455857
- OpenAlex
- W3081761439
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 8.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Health and Surgery
- Keywords
- cesarean section rate, public vs private health facilities, institutional delivery, cost reduction, India, National Family Health Survey, maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, maternal health financing
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Cesarean Section, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Surveys, Hospitals, Public, Humans, India, Pregnancy, Hospitals, Private, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review