Background: Majority of maternal deaths are avoidable through quality obstetric care such as Cesarean Section (CS). However, in low-and middle-income countries, many women are still dying due to lack of obstetric services. Tanzania is one of the African countries where maternal mortality is high. However, there is paucity of evidence related to the magnitude and trends of disparities in CS utilization in the country. This study examined both the magnitude and trends in socio-economic and geographic inequalities in access to birth by CS. Methods: Data were extracted from the Tanzania Demographic and Health Surveys (TDHSs) (1996-2015) and analyzed using the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT) software. First, access to birth by CS was disaggregated by four equity stratifiers: wealth index, education, residence and region. Second, we measured the inequality through summary measures, namely Difference (D), Ratio (R), Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Relative Index of Inequality (RII). A 95% confidence interval was constructed for point estimates to measure statistical significance. Results: The results showed variations in access to birth by CS across socioeconomic, urban-rural and regional subgroups in Tanzania from 1996 to 2015. Among the poorest subgroups, there was a 1.38 percentage points increase in CS coverage between 1996 and 2015 whereas approximately 11 percentage points increase was found among the richest subgroups within same period of time. The coverage of CS increased by nearly 1 percentage point, 3 percentage points and 9 percentage points among non-educated, those who had primary education and secondary or higher education, respectively over the last 19 years. The increase in coverage among rural residents was 2 percentage points and nearly 8 percentage points among urban residents over the last 19 years. Substantial disparity in CS coverage was recorded in all the studied surveys. For instance, in the most recent survey, pro-rich (RII = 15.55, 95% UI; 10.44, 20.66, SII = 15.8, 95% UI; 13.70, 17.91), pro-educated (RII = 13.71, 95% UI; 9.04, 18.38, SII = 16.04, 95% UI; 13.58, 18.49), pro-urban (R = 3.18, 95% UI; 2.36, 3.99), and subnational (D = 16.25, 95% UI; 10.02, 22.48) absolute and relative inequalities were observed. Conclusion: The findings showed that over the last 19 years, women who were uneducated, poorest/poor, living in rural settings and from regions such as Zanzibar South, appeared to utilize CS services less in Tanzania. Therefore, such subpopulations need to be the central focus of policies and programmes implemmentation to improve CS services coverage and enhance equity-based CS services utilization.
Tanzania is a country that has a a population of about 55 million as of 2016 and it is situated in the Eastern part of Africa [22]. The country has several climatic and topographic condition, which range from the hot and humid coastal lowlands of the Indian Ocean shoreline to the high inland mountain and lake region of the northern border, making it the home to different flora and fauna life [23]. Over the last decade, Tanzania has recorded relatively high economic growth, averaging 6–7% annually. There is evidence of an increase in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth from 6.8% in 2017 to 7% in 2018. Although the country managed to reduce its rate of poverty, the same success has not been repeated with respect to reducing the absolute number of poor people in the country due to high rate of population growth. Efforts by the government to boost coverage of social services like education, health, and water have been hampered by their declining quality as the size of the population does not correspond to the supply of the services [22]. Tanzania has a Human Development Index (HDI) value of 0.528 and ranks 159 out of the 189 countries and territories in 2018. The human development report positioned the country in the low human development category, an indication of poor performance in the three important dimensions of the human development, namely life expectancy, decent standard of living and accessibility to knowledge and learning [24]. In Tanzania, the probability of children under five dying before celebrating their fifth birthday is 53 deaths per 1000 live births. While neonatal mortality remained unchanged, Tanzania had seen a fall in the burden of post neonatal mortality rates, child mortality rates, infant mortality and under-five mortality rates [25]. Individuals aged 15 to 60 have a probability of dying of 299 and 222 deaths per 1000 population respectively. Expenditure on health has a share of 5.6% of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [26]. Tanzania’s health system follows a pyramidal structure, from village dispensaries and community-based activities at the base (under the responsibility of local government authorities), to ward, district, and regional level hospitals and finally referral and national hospitals at the summit. The government runs four health insurance schemes alongside multiple private options, but the vast majority of the population remains uninsured, leading to significant inequities in access to care. Tanzania’s 4th Health Sector Strategic Plan (2015–2020) provides for a new health financing strategy aimed at helping the country achieve universal health coverage, by addressing this complex and fractured health insurance market [27]. Data from the 1996 to 2015 TDHS, which are publicly available via Measure DHS were used in this study. TDHS are nationally representative household surveys with a strong focus on maternal and child health issues such as fertility levels and preferences, marriage, sexual activity, awareness and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices and use of maternal healthcare services [17]. DHSs serve as important sources of data for monitoring population health indicators and vital statistics in low- and middle-income countries and known by their design, which are highly comparable among different settings and over time. The sample design, selection and methodology of survey approach in each round were similar and has been available elsewhere [17]. Inequality in CS delivery 5 years preceding the surveys was measured for four equity stratifiers (economic status, education, place of residence and region). In this study, we refer to CS as primary variable and we do not use the word ‘outcome’ as we did not run any regression-based model. CS was measured as proportion of births that occurred via CS in the 5 years prior to the surveys. The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined equity stratifiers, also known as dimensions of inequality, as subpopulations that are used to disaggregate health indicators [9]. According to the WHO, a health inequality should be analyzed and interpreted using all dimensions of inequality as far as the available dimensions are relevant for the health indicator of interest, as well as data is available for each category of the subpopulations. In health disparity literature, big attention has been given to health inequality by economic status. However, the WHO recommends other dimensions as well such as place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, and social capital or resources. In the present study, we employed four dimensions of inequality to analyze CS inequality: economic status, education status, residence and subnational regions. Our selection of the equity stratifiers was based on the fact that they are relevant to CS and data on CS were also available for each of them. Economic status was approximated through a wealth index in the DHS computed using easy-to-collect data on household assets and ownerships such as televisions and bicycles; materials used for housing construction; and types of water access and sanitation facilities, following the methodology explained elsewhere [28] and was categorized into poorest, poorer, middle, richer and richest. Wealth index was computed for each of the four surveys conducted in Tanzania using principal component analysis (PCA) [29]. The wealth index variable used here is comparable across the survey years. In large household surveys like DHS where data on income cannot be collected, wealth index has been used as a proxy for household income and or expenditure measures [30]. The wealth index is a summary measure that reflects a household’s total economic well-being and allows for the identification of problems particular to the poor, such as unequal access to health care, as well as those particular to the wealthy, such as elevated risk of contracting HIV infection [28]. Maternal educational status was classified as no-education, primary education, and secondary education, place of residence as rural vs. urban and sub-national regions categorized into 30 regions. The latest version of the WHO’s HEAT software was adopted for the analysis [31]. In the software, CS delivery were analyzed and disaggregated by the four equity stratifiers-economic status, education, place of residence and region and were presented through the four of the 15 commonly used summary measures of health inequality [29]. In addition to disaggregation, we computed summary measures of inequality. Out of the 15 summary measures available in the software, we chose to use four, namely Difference (D), Ratio (R), Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Relative Index of Inequality (RII) due to their wider application in health care inequality studies [9, 32]. Both simple and complex summary measures were calculated for each equity stratifier to better understand inequality involved in the utilization of CS delivery [9]. For the economic status and education dimensions of inequality, Difference, Ratio, SII and RII were used. For place of residence, Difference and Ratio were calculated. Difference and Ratio are simple measures of health inequality, whereas the SII, and RII are complex measures [29]). While simple measures of health inequality are suitable for pairwise comparison of a health indicator of interest, they do not account for the subpopulations in the middle when applied to an equity stratifier with more than two categories, such as wealth index. This issue is avoided by the adoption of complex measures, whereby estimates are based on the sizes of all categories of a particular dimension of inequality [9, 29]. As step-by-step procedure for the calculation of each summary measure included in the health equity database are discussed in detail in the HEAT software technical notes [29] and the WHO handbook on the health inequality monitoring [9]. With economic status and education dimensions of inequality, Difference was calculated as CS delivery in the richest group minus in the poorest group, and CS delivery utilization among the group that has acquired at least secondary education minus the uneducated group. Similarly, for place of residence, Difference pertains to what exists between urban and rural populations. Finally, with the sub-national regions, Difference relates to the Difference between regions with the highest and the lowest CS coverage. R is calculated as the ratio of two subgroups: R = Yhigh / Ylow. For place of residence, Yhigh and Ylow are urban and rural residents respectively. Whereas in educational status, Yhigh and Ylow refers to respectively the most advantaged subgroups which are secondary schools and above and the most disadvantaged are subgroups with no education groups. In case of economic status, Yhigh and Ylow refers to the most advantaged subgroups which are the richest quintile and the most disadvantaged subgroups which are the poorest quintile respectively. Finally, SII and RII were calculated through a generalized linear model with a logit link. Their computation was restricted to ordered dimensions (education and economic status) and requires ranking of a weighted sample in order from the most disadvantaged (rank 0) to the most advantaged (rank 1) subgroups. The poorest and uneducated individuals were considered the most disadvantaged, but those that have completed secondary education and the richest subgroups were deemed most advantaged. Then, CS delivery was predicted for those at the two extremes and the difference in the predicted value between rank 1 and rank 0 produces SII. The RII was computed by dividing the predicted cesarean section delivery coverage for rank 1 by that of rank 0. Owing to the complex sampling structure of the DHS datasets, our analysis took this complexity into account in order to generate findings that are not biased as well as are representative. That is, the survey specifications were considered during analysis to redress problems introduced because of the sampling process and to generate reliable findings. As a measure of statistical significance, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were computed around point estimates. While interpreting inequality existence, Difference and SII lower and upper bounds of CI shall not entail zero. R and RII inequality exist if CIs do not involve one. In the case of inequality trend interpretation, CIs of the summary measures for different survey years shall not overlap to conclude a change in inequality over time. We did the analyses using publicly available DHS dataset. Because the ethical clearance was approved by the institution that commissioned, funded and managed the overall DHS program, further ethical clearance was not required. Informed consent from the participants prior to survey was obtained in the course of the survey. ICF international and the ethical review Board (IRB) of Tanzania also ensured that the protocols are in compliance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations for the protection of human subjects.
N/A