4.6 Article

Socio-economic disparities in maternal mortality in China between 1996 and 2006

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02707.x

关键词

China; MDG 5; MMR; socio-economic disparities; time trends

资金

  1. UNICEF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective China's economic reforms have raised concerns over rising inequalities in maternal mortality, but it is not known whether the gap across socio-economic regions has increased over time. Design A population-based, longitudinal, ecological correlation study. Setting China. Sample Records from the National Maternal and Child Mortality Surveillance System between 1996 and 2006. Methods We report levels, causes and timing of maternal deaths, and examine crude and adjusted time trends in the overall and cause-specific maternal mortality ratio in five socio-economic regions (using Poisson regression). We examine whether socio-economic disparities have widened over time using concentration curves. Main outcome measures All-causes and cause-specific maternal mortality ratios. Results Maternal mortality (MMR) declined by 6% per year (yearly rate ratio, RR, 0.94; 95% CI 0.93-0.96). The decline was most pronounced in the wealthiest rural type-I counties (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85-0.93), and in the poorest rural type-IV counties (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82-1.00). There were declines in almost all causes of maternal death. Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) was by far the leading cause of maternal death (32%, 997/3164). The decline in MMR was largely explained by the increased uptake of institutional births. Concentration curves suggest that wealth-related regional inequalities did not increase over time. Conclusions China's extraordinary economic growth has not adversely affected disparities in MMR across socio-economic regions over time, but poor rural women remain at disproportionate risk. Other emerging economies can learn from China's focus on the supply and quality of maternity services along with more general health systems strengthening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据