Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

An exploration of the socio-economic profile of women and costs of receiving abortion services at public health facilities of Madhya Pradesh, India

  • Sushanta K. Banerjee1Email author,
  • Rakesh Kumar2,
  • Janardan Warvadekar3,
  • Vinoj Manning4 and
  • Kathryn Louise Andersen5
BMC Health Services ResearchBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:223

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2159-6

Received: 28 May 2016

Accepted: 11 March 2017

Published: 21 March 2017

Abstract

Background

Maternal mortality, which primarily burdens developing countries, reflects the greatest health divide between rich and poor. This is especially pronounced for access to safe abortion services which alone avert 1 of every 10 maternal deaths in India. Primarily due to confidentiality concerns, poor women in India prefer private services which are often offered by untrained providers and may be expensive. In 2006 the state government of Madhya Pradesh (population 73 million) began a concerted effort to ensure access to safe abortion services at public health facilities to both rural and urban poor women. This study aims to understand the socio-economic profile of women seeking abortion services in public health facilities across this state and out of pocket cost accessing abortion services. In particular, we examine the level of access that poor women have to safe abortion services in Madhya Pradesh.

Methods

This study consisted of a cross-sectional client follow-up design. A total of 19 facilities were selected using two-stage random sampling and 1036 women presenting to chosen facilities with abortion and post-abortion complications were interviewed between May and December 2014. A structured data collection tool was developed. A composite wealth index computed using principal component analysis derived weights from consumer durables and asset holding and classified women into three categories, poor, moderate, and rich.

Results

Findings highlight that overall 57% of women who received abortion care at public health facilities were poor, followed by 21% moderate and 22% rich. More poor women sought care at primary level facilities (58%) than secondary level facilities and among women presenting for postabortion complications (67%) than induced abortion. Women reported spending no money to access abortion services as abortion services are free of cost at public facilities. However, poor women spend INR 64 (1 USD) while visiting primary level facilities and INR 256 (USD 4) while visiting urban hospitals, primarily for transportation and food.

Conclusions

Improved availability of safe abortion services at the primary level in Madhya Pradesh has helped meeting the need of safe abortion services among poor, which eventually will help reducing the maternal mortality and morbidity due to unsafe abortion.

Keywords

Safe abortion Economic profile of client Public health facility Evacuation technology Cost of abortion

Background

Maternal mortality, which primarily burdens developing countries, reflects the greatest health divide between rich and poor [1]. Although India has made progress towards the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) by three quarters, with a 52% reduction between 1990 and the 2007–2009 period, the decline has not been even across all regions of India [2]. Furthermore, abortion related complications continue to account for 8–9% of maternal mortality despite a liberal abortion law [3]. The Medical Pregnancy Termination Act of 1971 allows women to obtain abortion for a range of indications, including contraceptive failure for married women- yet an estimated 50% of abortions are unsafe [4].

Despite strong and favorable policies, India garnered little momentum to improve maternal mortality and morbidity due to unsafe abortion [5], primarily because of limited access to and utilization of safe abortion services. While three-fourths of the Indian population live in rural areas, abortion services are rarely available at rural health facilities because of lack of trained providers [6, 7]. Even where trained providers are available, safe abortion services are underutilized due to numerous individual and community-level factors, such as, lack of awareness of the legality of abortion [8, 9], limited understanding on the implications of unsafe abortion and lack of information on availability of safe providers and methods, poor agency and self-efficacy among women require abortion services, myths, misconception, and social stigma associated with abortion [10, 11].

Reducing maternal deaths requires establishing maternal health services, including safe abortion services by ensuring the presence of qualified staff and increasing use of public sector facilities by women [1214]. Global studies indicate, however, that a lower percentage of poor and rural women use maternal health services and that cost is an important constraint to service utilization, particularly for the rural poor [2, 12, 13, 1517]. For abortion care, studies indicate that women prefer services that they believe to be confidential or more affordable, such as private services often offered by untrained or illegal providers [18, 19]. Although private sector abortion care is more expensive, the indirect costs of reaching public sector facilities can be prohibitive to the rural poor community because of long distance travel and repeated visits [14, 20]. This financial burden could be reduced with improved access to women-centered comprehensive abortion care (CAC)1 at primary and community health centres located at the rural areas [21].

The state of Madhya Pradesh is among the six states with an MMR higher than the overall India rate (221 compared to 167 deaths per 100,000 live births) [2]. Madhya Pradesh is one of India’s largest states with about three fourths of its population living in rural areas [22]. Previous studies have documented low use of maternal health facilities in Madhya Pradesh, especially in rural areas [13]. Furthermore, studies have shown that use of unsafe abortion methods in Madhya Pradesh is common, resulting in high levels of post-abortion complications. In 2006, when only 2.7% of PHCs offered abortion services, the state government of Madhya Pradesh with technical support of Ipas Development Foundation (IDF) began a concerted effort to ensure access to safe abortion services at all levels of public health facilities [23], including primary, secondary facilities, and tertiary facilities. Key IDF interventions involved training physicians, orienting nursing staff, providing essential equipment and drugs, and establishing site signage (poster or wall sign) on availability of abortion services [24]. The primary goal of this effort was to ensure free access to safe and early abortion services among rural and urban poor.

This study explores the socio-economic profile of women accessing safe abortion services at different levels of public health facilities in rural and urban Madhya Pradesh. A recent study by Chaturvedi et al. examined availability of abortion services at public and private facilities across three provinces of Madhya Pradesh. Findings showed low availability of safe abortion among public health facilities, particularly in rural areas. While the study provided critical information on the capacity for and quality of abortion care at the facility level, the question still remains as to the safe abortion practices of the poorest women in Madhya Pradesh [25]. This study specifically examines: 1) whether poor women were accessing safe abortion services at public health facilities, 2) the socio-economic profile of women varied by type of public sector facilities, and 3) if women incurred any out-of-pocket cost (indirect) to access services in terms of transportation, food, clinical examination, and medicines.

While research has explored the use of maternal health and abortion services in tertiary and secondary level facilities, there has been no examination of use of abortion services across all levels of the public health system in India [26]. Having a better understanding of who is using the free abortion services at public health facilities is crucial to developing appropriate strategies to reach all women.

Methods

Design and site selection

This study employed a cross-sectional design. The protocol for this study was reviewed and approved by the state government of Madhya Pradesh, IRB boards at the Center for Media Studies in India. A total of 20 public health facilities in Madhya Pradesh were selected using a two-stage sample design. First, all facilities offering CAC in the 50 districts of Madhya Pradesh were categorized according to the four regions based on government designations of health divisions (12–13 districts per division). Facilities were also stratified by type (primary vs secondary) within each region. Secondly, four primary level facilities and one secondary level hospital were selected from each region using computer generated random numbers. A total of 20 health facilities were identified for the study across 16 districts of the Madhya Pradesh. However, one health facility dropped out at the beginning as they stopped providing abortion services. The 19 public health facilities selected for inclusion are shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Location of 19 sampled public sector facilities, Madhya Pradesh, India 2014. Figure was created by the authors

Sample size

The sample size was estimated for the percentage of poor women accessing abortion services from public health facilities. For operational reasons, poor women were defined as those women holding a below poverty line (BPL) card issued by the state government. The BPL designation is a composite index score of household economic status defined by 13 socio-economic indicators, including landholding, type of house, availability of clothes, food security, sanitation, ownership of consumer durables, literacy status, status of household labour force, means of livelihood, status of school-going children, type of indebtedness, reason of migration and preference of assistance [27]. We estimated that primary health centres, consisting of one trained medical doctor, would have the lowest caseloads of abortion clients followed by community health centres, sub-district, and district hospitals. A primary health centre (PHC) is the first contact between the rural community and a medical doctor and cover around 30,00 population; community health centres (CHCs) are referral centres for PHCs and cover around 120,000 rural population. Secondary level facilities including, sub-district (SDH) and district hospitals (DH) are located at towns and cities and provide specialized health care services to both rural and urban population [28].

On the basis of available research in the state [29], we estimated that women from BPL category would be approximately 20 to 25% at different levels of public health facilities (20% at PHC, 25% at CHC, and 25% at SDH/DH hospitals). The following formula was used to estimate the minimum sample size:
$$ \mathrm{q}/\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}=\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{v}}^2 $$

Where the coefficient of variation (cv) is fixed at 0.1 or 10% (equivalent to fixing absolute error at 20% of true proportion and estimating at 95% confidence) and p equals the proportion of women holding BPL card. This suggested a total minimum sample size of 1000 women accessing abortion services at randomly selected public health facilities.

Study participants, tools, and data management

Women presenting to selected facilities with abortion and post-abortion complications and provided informed consent were interviewed between May and December 2014. Two separate data collection tools were used: a structured case logbook and a structured questionnaire to capture individual and household economic status.

As a routine protocol of the CAC intervention, the logbook was used for all women seeking abortion-related services, including induced abortion and postabortion complications. Logbooks were maintained by the CAC trained medical doctor or nursing staff and contain individual-level data on abortion services, including age, gestational age of pregnancy, diagnosis (induced or incomplete abortion), uterine evacuation technology, reasons for pregnancy termination, provider identification, procedure date, and postabortion contraceptive uptake/method. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, duplicate pages of abortion log-books were collected for the study, which excluded women’s identifying information (name, address and name of guardian, where applicable).

The individual and household level data collection tool was developed to provide a comprehensive client profile. Questions included whether the client belonged to one of the castes associated with the most disadvantage groups scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST) and other backward caste (OBC), if the family held a BPL card, as well as education and occupation of abortion clients and their spouses. To assess household economic status, a series of questions were asked on the possession of household durables such as appliances and means of transportation. In addition, clients were asked about the type of house they lived in, whether it was owned or rented, in-home access to separate toilet, electricity, cooking fuel, and land holding and quality of land holding in terms of irrigation facility. Finally, women described indirect out-of-pocket costs incurred for transportation, medicine and clinical tests, and food.

Participants were interviewed by the CAC trained doctor who provided the abortion service or nursing staff responsible for documentation, instrument processing and post-abortion counselling. One doctor and one nursing staff from each of the primary level facilities were trained on the interview process, collection of consent form and data collection techniques. At facilities with higher caseloads, one additional nursing staff was trained to ensure that at least one trained person always remained available at the study facility. Providers recorded service data in the facility logbooks; IDF staff visited each facility at least once every two months to collect carbon copies that exclude patient identifiers. All women who received abortion related services were approached for the interview. The study staff explained the purpose and nature of the study to all participants and assured women of low literacy levels that they could contact the study staff at any time to reread or to explain the informed consent form to them. Women were primarily interviewed by the trained nursing staff at the post-abortion recovery room where no other patient or staff were available during interviews. All participants signed the informed consent form or gave their verbal consent to the interviewer who noted this consent on the paper form. Participant confidentiality was ensured by using a client identification number on data collection forms. No compensation was provided to participants, and they were assured that study non-participation would in no way affect their service provision and care.

Analysis

Data were entered and analysed using SPSS version 13.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were computed, including frequency and percent of non-missing for categorical variables and means with associated standard deviations for continuous variables.

Past research in India has relied on caste and holding a BPL card as proxies for poverty [14, 30], however these measures are not sensitive enough to measure differences among poor populations. Alternatively, a number of studies have demonstrated that the wealth index is a good proxy of economic status [3134] and has been used extensively to explain the economic differentials in demographic and health parameters of developing countries. For the purpose of this study, we have adapted the DHS Wealth Index [31]. In addition, we have validated the wealth index and examined its linkages with individual proxy variables of social and economic status, which includes education, caste, per-capita household income, land-holding, occupation, and living standard.

To develop the wealth index for this study, we first used principal component analysis (PCA) where each household asset (as reported by the study respondent) was assigned a weight (factor score) generated through PCA analysis. The resulting asset scores were standardized based on a normal distribution. Next, each individual household was then assigned a score for each of the 27 selected economic variables, and a composite wealth index score was computed by adding individual items. Finally, the composite wealth index scores were segmented into three categories and defined as poor, middle and rich. Reliability and internal consistency of the wealth index were examined through α (alpha) score, while the validity of the wealth index was assessed by cross classifying the wealth index with reported education, caste, landholding, household income and BPL card holding. The distribution of the composite wealth index was normally distributed.

Because public sector facilities do not charge any direct fees for providing abortion services, indirect costs were analysed for transportation, medicine, food and clinical tests and summed to calculate total and average out-of-pocket costs incurred by each respondent for accessing abortion services. Where appropriate, a currency conversion rate of 1 USD: 64 INR was used (Reference date June 2015).

All analyses comparing service use, abortion experience and economic expenditure were carried out separately for the primary (including PHCs and CHCs) and secondary (district and sub-district hospitals) level health facilities and facility level variations were examined using statistical significance tests.

Results

A total of 1036 women presenting to study facilities for abortion and post-abortion complications and provided informed consent were interviewed between May and December 2014. Seventy-two percent (n = 742) of respondents were interviewed at selected primary level health facilities (primary and community health centres) and 28% were interviewed at secondary level hospitals (including sub-district and district hospitals). Although no women refused to participate, seven interviews remained incomplete because women had to leave to catch their scheduled public transport.

Characteristics of study participants

Among the 1036 study participants who received abortion services at public health facilities, most (75%) were 20–29 years of age (Table 1). Nearly three-fourths (74%) of women identified themselves as belonging to a scheduled caste/tribe or other backward class.2 Almost three-fourths of women (76%) lived in rural areas and 38% of respondents reported no or primary level of education. More than half of women (60%) didn’t work outside their homes in the past year. The main source of household income among women interviewed at primary level facilities was from owning a small farm (50%) or from a daily wage (18%), while women at secondary level hospitals reported salary (33%) and business (21%) as the main source of income. Ownership of BPL (below poverty line) card was similar among women visited primary (37%) and secondary (35%) level health facilities.
Table 1

Socio-demographic profile of study respondents received abortion services at selected primary and secondary level public health facilities, Madhya Pradesh, India 2014

 

Primary facilities (n = 742)

Secondary facilities (n = 294)

p-value

All facilities (n=1036)

 

n

%

n

%

 

n

%

Age

 15–19

33

4.4%

8

2.7%

0.199

41

4.0%

 20–24

294

39.6%

89

30.3%

0.005

383

37.0%

 25–29

282

38.0%

108

36.7%

0.703

390

37.6%

 30–34

101

13.6%

56

19.0%

0.027

157

15.2%

 35 & above

32

4.3%

33

11.2%

0.000

65

6.3%

Mean age (SD)

25 (4.4)

 

27 (5.16)

 

0.000

26 (4.65)

 

Caste

 Scheduled caste (SC)

112

15.1%

33

11.2%

0.105

145

14.0%

 Scheduled tribe (ST)

161

21.7%

26

8.8%

0.000

187

18.1%

 Other backward caste (OBC)

308

41.5%

122

41.5%

0.996

430

41.5%

 General

161

21.7%

113

38.4%

0.000

274

26.4%

Place of residence

 Urban

153

20.6%

95

32.3%

0.000

248

23.9%

 Rural

589

79.4%

199

67.7%

0.000

788

76.1%

Education of respondent (max number of year)

 Non-literate or Primary (4)

311

41.9%

83

28.2%

0.000

394

38.0%

 Middle standard (9)

198

26.7%

68

23.1%

0.237

266

25.7%

 Secondary (11)

140

18.9%

63

21.4%

0.349

203

19.6%

 Higher secondary & above (15)

93

12.5%

80

27.2%

0.000

173

16.7%

Education of spouse

 Non-literate or Primary (4)

186

25.1%

43

14.6%

0.000

229

22.1%

 Middle standard (9)

155

20.9%

55

18.7%

0.431

210

20.3%

 Secondary (11)

207

27.9%

69

23.5%

0.146

276

26.6%

 Higher secondary (12)

96

12.9%

63

21.4%

0.000

159

15.3%

 Graduate & above (17)

98

13.2%

64

21.8%

0.000

162

15.6%

Occupation of respondent

 Cultivation/ agricultural labour

222

29.9%

34

11.6%

0.000

256

24.7%

 Non-agricultural labour

72

9.7%

21

7.1%

0.071

93

9.0%

 Salaried

36

4.9%

16

5.4%

0.054

52

5.0%

 Business and other

17

2.3%

  

0.000

17

1.6%

 Not working

395

53.2%

223

75.9%

0.759

618

59.7%

Occupation of spouse

 Cultivation/ agricultural labour

374

50.4%

67

22.8%

0.228

441

42.6%

 Non-agricultural labour

137

18.5%

62

21.1%

0.333

199

19.2%

 Salaried

108

14.6%

96

32.7%

0.000

204

19.7%

 Business and other

83

11.2%

61

20.7%

0.000

144

13.9%

 Not working

40

5.4%

8

2.7%

0.065

48

4.6%

Owning a BPL card

272

36.7%

102

34.7%

0.553

374

36.1%

Per capita household income [INR] (sd)

1354 (1626)

 

1910 (2241)

 

0.000

1513 (1839)

 

Characteristics of abortion services

Women travelled an average distance of 13 km to reach a primary level facility and 26 km to reach to a secondary level hospital. More than two-thirds (70%) of study respondents received induced abortion services, while the remaining 30% received services for post-abortion complications, including incomplete abortion. However, the proportion of women seeking care for post-abortion complications was significantly higher at secondary level hospitals (48%) compared to primary level facilities (23%). Nearly all women (97%) requested abortion services during the first trimester (within 12 weeks of gestation). Almost 95% women received evacuation through WHO/GOI recommended technology, including MVA (51%), MA (33%) and EVA (11%). Almost 90% women received a modern contraceptive method immediately after the abortion procedure (Table 2).
Table 2

Characteristics of abortion services received by study respondents at selected primary and secondary level public health facilities, Madhya Pradesh, India 2014

 

Primary facilities (n = 742)

Secondary facilities (n = 294)

p-value

All facilities (1036)

 

n

%

n

%

 

n

%

Diagnosis

 Induced

575

77.5%

154

52.4%

0.000

729

70.4%

 Incomplete abortion

167

22.5%

140

47.6%

0.000

307

29.6%

Gestation (duration of pregnancy)

 6–8 weeks

661

89.1%

256

87.1%

0.360

917

88.5%

 8–12 weeks

66

8.9%

22

7.5%

0.462

88

8.5%

 More than 12 weeks

15

2.0%

16

5.4%

0.004

31

3.0%

Mean gestation (SD)

 

7.0 (1.9)

 

7.5 (2.6)

0.002

 

7.1 (2.2)

Abortion methods

 MVA

380

51.2%

150

51.0%

0.955

530

51.2%

 EVA

61

8.2%

48

16.3%

0.000

109

10.5%

 MA

292

39.4%

53

18.0%

0.000

345

33.3%

 D&C

9

1.2%

43

14.6%

0.000

52

5.0%

Mean distance travelled in km (sd)

12.6 (35.3)

 

25.7 (26.38)

 

0.000

16.3 (33.54)

 

Received post-abortion contraceptives

692

93.3%

240

81.6%

0.000

932

90.0%

Reference source (referred by)

 Outreach workers (ANM,ASHA,AWW)

172

23.2%

44

15.0%

0.003

216

20.8%

 NGO workers

2

0.3%

1

0.3%

0.848

3

0.3%

 Others

568

76.5%

249

84.7%

0.003

817

78.9%

Accompanied to the facility by outreach workers

134

18.1%

40

13.6%

0.083

174

16.8%

Economic profile of women accessed abortion services at public health facilities

Classification of study respondents based on their individual wealth score suggests that women who accessed abortion services at primary level health facility around 58% of them belonged to poor households followed by 22% and 20% from middle and rich households, respectively (Table 3). Among women who visited secondary level urban hospitals 52, 20 and 28% belonged to poor, middle, and rich households, respectively.
Table 3

Economic profile of study respondents received abortion services at selected primary and secondary level public health facilities, Madhya Pradesh, India 2014

Economic profile

Primary facilities (n=742)

Secondary facilities (n=294)

p-value

All facilities (n=1036)

 

n

%

n

%

 

n

%

Poor

432

58.2%

153

52.0%

0.070

585

56.5%

Middle

163

22.0%

58

19.7%

0.427

221

21.3%

Rich

147

19.8%

83

28.2%

0.000

230

22.2%

Characteristics of service provision by economic profile of women

Among women who visited primary level facilities for induced abortion services, 55% were poor, 23% middle income and 22% rich, while women who presented for incomplete abortion were 68% poor, 19% middle income, and 13% rich (Table 4). A similar trend was observed at secondary level hospitals. However, women who visited secondary level facilities for induced abortion were relatively well off than the women visited primary level facilities (Primary 22% Vs Secondary 38%, p < 0.001).
Table 4

Presenting induced and incomplete abortion by economic profile of women, Madhya Pradesh, India 2014

Economic Status

Primary facilities (n=742)

Secondary facilities (n=294)

All facilities (n=1036)

 

Induced (n=575)

Incomplete (n=167)

Induced (n=154)

Incomplete (n=140)

Induced (n=729)

Incomplete (n=307)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

p-value

n

%

p-value

n

%

n

%

Poor

319

55.5%

113

67.7%

60

39.0%

0.000

93

66.4%

0.664

379

52.0%

206

67.1%

Moderate

131

22.8%

32

19.2%

36

23.4%

0.876

22

15.7%

0.157

167

22.9%

54

17.6%

Rich

125

21.7%

22

13.2%

58

37.7%

0.000

25

17.9%

0.179

183

25.1%

47

15.3%

There was no statistically significant association between economic profile and uterine evacuation method, although relatively more rich women appeared to receive medical abortion as compared to poor and middle income women (Table 5).
Table 5

Uterine evacuation technology used at public health facilities by economic profile of women, Madhya Pradesh, 2014

Economic Status

Primary facilities (n=742)

Secondary facilities (n=294)

All facilities (n=1036)

 

Surgical (n=441)

Medical (n-301)

Surgical (n=198)

Medical (n=96)

Surgical (n=639)

Medical (n=397)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

p-value

n

%

p-value

n

%

n

%

Poor

265

60.1%

167

55.5%

106

53.6%

0.120

47

49.0%

0.260

371

58.1%

214

53.9%

Moderate

101

22.9%

62

20.6%

40

20.2%

0.446

18

18.8%

0.694

141

22.1%

80

20.2%

Rich

75

17.0%

72

23.9%

52

26.3%

0.006

31

32.3%

0.103

127

19.9%

103

25.9%

Indirect cost of accessing abortion services at public health facilities

Although abortion services are technically free at public sector facilities, women reported that the indirect average total cost for an abortion at primary health centre was 67 INR (1USD) (SD = 137 INR; Range: 0–2700), while the same cost was almost three times for women accessed services at urban hospitals (Table 6).
Table 6

Indirect cost (in INR) of accessing abortion services as reported by study respondents received abortion services at selected primary and secondary level public health facilities, Madhya Pradesh, India 2014

 

Primary facilities

Secondary facilities

p-value

All facilities

 

Mean (SD)

Range

Mean (SD)

Range

 

Mean (SD)

Range

Average cost

67 (137.31)

(0–2700)

239 (357.87)

(0–3000)

0.000

116 (236.19)

(0–3000)

Cost by components

 Transportation

42 (105.75)

(0–2400)

181 (297.81)

(0–3000)

0.000

81 (192.44)

(0–3000)

 Medicines

8 (32.0)

(0–130)

7 (41.46)

(0–400)

0.681

8 (34.93)

(0–400)

 Clinical tests

--

(0–300)

40 (124.68)

(0–950)

NE

12 (69.37)

(0–950)

 Local stay

2 (20.26)

(0–300)

2 (14.15)

(0–200)

NE

2 (18.72)

(0–300)

 Other costs

14 (51.99)

0–900)

10 (39.10)

(0–300)

0.245

13 (48.70)

(0–900)

Cost by wealth Status

 Poor

69 (105.85)

(0–1000)

305 (425.15)

(0–3000)

0.000

131 (257.09)

(0–3000)

 Middle

56 (76.88)

(0–320)

188 (266.12)

(0–1610)

0.000

91 (161.61)

(0–1610)

 Rich

75 (236.31)

(0–2700)

154 (236.84)

(0–3000)

0.023

103 (239.06)

(0–2700)

These expenses were primarily associated with travel costs, and varied from 67 INR (1 USD) at primary level facilities to 239 INR (3 USD) at urban hospitals with a large range (0–3000 INR). Other expenses reported by a few women included medicines and clinical tests. However, expenses for clinical tests were only mentioned by women who received care at urban hospitals. The total indirect cost of accessing abortion services had no significant association with women’s economic profile at primary level facilities. In contrast, significant associations can be observed at the secondary level facilities. Surprisingly, poor women spent more on average (305 INR) than their counterparts from middle (188 INR) and rich households (154 INR), when seeking care at urban hospitals. In general, indirect cost of accessing abortion services were more at the secondary level facilities. Among poor women who visited secondary level urban hospitals spent almost five times more than poor women who visited primary level facilities (305 INR vs 69 INR; p < 0.001), while women from middle (56 INR vs 188 INR; p < 0.001), and rich (75 INR vs 154 INR; p < 0.023), households spent three and two times more respectively.

Discussion

This is one of the first studies in India, following the decentralization initiative begun in 2006, that both examines the profile of women seeking safe abortion services at public sector facilities and assesses this access in the context of poverty. Findings from our representative sample of public health facilities suggest that women coming for abortion services are predominantly from rural areas; even at urban hospitals, more than two-thirds of women came from rural areas. The majority of women who visited public health facilities to access abortion services are poor, who are at highest risk of maternal mortality and morbidity due to unsafe abortion. This finding should be understood in the context of health inequity in India, where health service utilization has been found to differ significantly by caste and income. Results from a study looking at progress based on social strata showed extreme inequality in utilization of health services by caste. For example, in 2005–06, immunization coverage among scheduled tribes and scheduled castes was 31.3 and 39.7% respectively, compared with 53.8% among other castes, and absolute inequalities between these castes increased with time [20]. There are several reasons why the cost of abortion may be higher among poor women. First, poor women mostly came from the rural area and had relatively higher cost of travel and food than those in towns and villages closer to facilities. Moreover, poor women, perhaps owing to their delayed treatment, also visited a higher level facility to treat their incomplete abortion; in these facilities, women were more likely to be asked for clinical examination and pay higher fees.

To validate these findings and further to understand the relative profile of women categorized as ‘poor’, ‘middle’ and ‘rich’, we assessed the linkages of these three economic segments with the individual household economic profile. The analysis suggests that the majority of women grouped as poor women came from rural areas and self-reported low literacy, disadvantaged caste, and living in a kachha house without a toilet or modern cooking fuel. Contrary to our expectations, the association with economic profile and holding a BPL card was not strong. Only 44% of poor women reported holding a BPL card, while almost 17% of rich women reported owing the BPL card. However this finding is in line with an earlier study that found that BPL card distribution has failed to reach the majority of the poor households in India, while a portion end up with users from non-poor households [27]. With the exception of BPL, all other socio-economic variables validate our classification of women into poor, middle and rich households, supporting the validity of our findings that decentralization of abortion services is resulting in access to services among women of all economic profiles, and predominantly the poor.

This study suggests that public sector facilities provide access to postabortion services for all women, especially poor and vulnerable populations because the majority of women seeking care met our classification for poor. Although poor women do use public health facilities, the fact that they are the predominant users of post-abortion care suggests a lack of access to information and services related to safe abortion and a reliance on informal providers for initial pregnancy termination. This finding is in line with other studies on utilization of maternal health services that suggest that poor women have lower rates of formal health care utilization overall. Results from an analysis of three rounds of National Family Health Survey found that while use of antenatal care (ANC) services in the whole of India increased by 12 percentage points between 1992 and 2006, the increase among the poor was only 0.1 percentage points and that use of skilled birth attendants had increased by 13 percentage points, while only 2 percentage points could be attributed to women belonging to the poorest quintile [14]. Another study similarly found significant improvement in institutional delivery for the non-poor, with women in the richest quintile being six times more likely to deliver in an institution than were those in the poorest quintile [20].

Cost of abortion has often been regarded as one of the major barriers to accessing safe abortion services. Studies indicate that availability of free services may not ensure service utilization due to the burden of additional out-of-pocket expenses [20]. Abortion services are technically free at public health facilities; however, women in this study reported spending 67 INR (1 USD) at primary health facilities and 239 INR (4 USD) at secondary level hospitals primarily because of transportation, as well as other expenses including food and clinical tests. In addition, the average indirect expenditures varied significantly depending on distance travelled and mode of transportation. Surprisingly poor women who visited urban hospitals spent almost thrice that of rich women (305 INR compared to 156 INR), while no difference in costs between poor and rich women was observed for rural, primary level facilities. Thus the decentralization of abortion services to the periphery not only facilitates access to safe abortion services for poor women, but also reduces the financial burden due to long distance travel and loss of working days. It should be noted that the indirect out-of-pocket costs reported here are significantly lower than costs reported in other studies [35, 36].

The findings of this study must be viewed in light of methodological limitations. Results cannot be generalized to the whole of Madhya Pradesh as this study was restricted to the public sector facilities. Economic status of the households was determined using self-reported assets and access to consumer durables and as such are susceptible to bias. Furthermore, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow us to accurately measure the impact of decentralization of abortion services on poor women’s access to care.

Conclusions

Although poor women are predominantly visiting public health facility, many poor still do not have access to correct information and services which lead them to unsafe providers with aggravated risk of postabortion complications. Safe accessible and affordable abortion services should continue to be scaled and supported across public facilities in Madhya Pradesh, and India, particularly in disadvantaged areas of India.

Footnotes
1

Ipas’s woman-centered CAC approach takes into account a woman’s physical and mental health needs as well as her personal circumstances and her ability to access services [21]. CAC should consist of high-quality abortion, postabortion and family planning services that are decentralized, affordable, sustainable and tailored to the needs of all women, including youth. The aim of CAC services are to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion [21]].

 
2

Under Article 340–342 of the Indian Constitution, the Government of India classifies some of its citizens based on their social and economic conditions as Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Class (OBC). The term backward class is a collective term, used by the government for castes that are economically and socially disadvantaged.

 

Abbreviations

BPL: 

Below poverty line

CAC: 

Comprehensive abortion care

CHC: 

Community Health Centre

D&C: 

Dilatation and curettage

DH: 

District Hospital

EVA: 

Electric vacuum aspiration

INR: 

Indian rupee

KM: 

Kilo meter

LPG: 

Liquid petroleum gas

MA: 

Medical abortion

MCH: 

Medical College Hospital

MDG: 

Millennium development goal

MVA: 

Manual vacuum aspiration

PCA: 

Principal component analysis

PHC: 

Primary Health Centre

SDH: 

Sub-district hospital

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to our partners at the state government of Madhya Pradesh for supporting this study.

Funding

This study was supported as part of data collected for monitoring and evaluation purposes by a general programmatic grant. The funder provided no input into the design, implementation or interpretation of the study.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the topic. However, data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

SKB led design, implementation, analysis, interpretation and write-up of results; RK participated in interpretation of findings and manuscript preparation; JW participated in implementation and analysis; VM supported design and interpretation; KA supported design, analysis, interpretation and manuscript preparation. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The protocol for this study was reviewed and approved by the state government of Madhya Pradesh, and institutional review boards at the Center for Media Studies in India (#IRB00006230) and Allendale in the United States (#IpasIND-7494). The study staff explained the purpose and nature of the study to all participants and assured women of low literacy levels that they could contact the study staff at any time to reread or to explain the informed consent form to them. All participants signed the informed consent form or gave their verbal consent to the interviewer who signed on behalf of the participant.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Senior Director- Research and Evaluation, Ipas Development Foundation
(2)
Joint Secretary- Reproductive & Child Health Programme, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India
(3)
Manager- Research and Evaluation, Ipas Development Foundation
(4)
Executive Director, Ipas Development Foundation
(5)
Senior Advisor- Research and Evaluation, Ipas

References

  1. GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2014;385(9963):117–71.Google Scholar
  2. Central Statistical Organization. Millennium Development Goals, India Country Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India; 2011.Google Scholar
  3. Registrar General of India. Maternal Mortality in India: 1997–2003. New Delhi: Registrar General of India; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. Duggal R, Ramachandran V. The abortion assessment project–India: key findings and recommendations. Reprod Health Matters. 2004;12(24):122–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. WHO. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2013. Estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank and the United Nations Population Division. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  6. Banerjee SK, Tank J. Expanding the provider base: Improving access, saving lives. In: Prevention of unsafe abortion in Asia Oceania region [Internet]. New Delhi: Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics & Gynecology; 2009. p. 93–103. Available from: https://venus.ipas.org/library/fulltext/BanerjeeAOFOG2009.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Kalyanwala S, Zavier A, Jejeebhoy S. Public health facilities and women’s access to abortion: A situational analysis in Maharashtra and Rajasthan. New Delhi: Population Council; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Ganatra B, Hirve S. Induced Abortions among Adolescent Women in Rural Maharashtra, India. Reprod Health Matters. 2002;10(19):76–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Malhotra A, Nyblade L, Parsuaman S, MacQuarrie K, Kashyap N, Walia S. Realizing Reproductive Choice and Rights: Abortion and Contraception in India. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women (ICRW); 2003.Google Scholar
  10. Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Warvadekar J, Aich P, Rawat A, Upadhyay B. How prepared are young, rural women in India to address their sexual and reproductive health needs? A cross-sectional assessment of youth in Jharkhand. Reprod Health. 2015;12(1):97.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Ganatra B, Banerjee SK. Expanding community-based access to medical abortion in Jharkhand: A pre-intervention baseline survey in selected two blocks of Ranchi and Khunti districts. New Delhi: Ipas India; 2010. Available from: http://www.academia.edu/14028247/Expanding_Community-Based_Access_to_Medical_Abortion_in_Jharkhand_A_preintervention_baseline_survey_in_selected_two_blocks_of_Ranchi_and_Khunti_districts._New_Delhi_Ipas_India.Google Scholar
  12. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD/MENRIS). Districts of Nepal: Indicators of Development. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development; 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Jat TR, Ng N, San SM. Factors affecting the use of maternal health services in Madhya Pradesh state of India: a multilevel analysis. Int J Equity Health. 2011;10:59.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Sannevig L, Trygg N, Saxena D, Mavalankar D, Thomsen S. Inequity in India: the case of maternal and reproductive health. Glob Health Action. 2013;6:19145.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Navaneetham K, Charmalingam A. Utilization of maternal health care services in Southern India. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:1849–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gwatkin DR, Bhuiya A, Victora CG. Making health systems more equitable. Lancet. 2004;364(9441):1273–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bhati JC, Cleland J. Determinants of maternal care in a region of South India. Health Transit Rev. 1995;5:127–42.Google Scholar
  18. Sri BS, Ravindran TK. Medical abortion: understanding perspectives of rural and marginalized women from rural South India. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118 Suppl 1:S33–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bose S, Trent K. Socio-demographic determinants of abortion in India: a north–south comparison. J Biosoc Sci. 2006;38(2):261–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Balarajan Y, Selvaraj S, Subramanian SV. Health care and equity in India. Lancet. 2011;377(9764):505–15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyman A, Kumar A. A woman-centered model for comprehensive abortion care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;86(3):409–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. India RGo. Madhya Pracesh Profile: Population Census Data, 2011. New Delhi: Registrar General of India; 2011.Google Scholar
  23. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Ipas India. Abortion & Law: Operationalizing District Level Committees under the MTP Act in Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: Ipas India; 2007.Google Scholar
  24. Shrivastava Bhushan SK, Benwari J, Saratkar K. Reducing Maternal Mortality in Madhya Pradesh by Improved Access to Comprehensive Abortion Care Services: Learning of Last Five Years. Seven Years of National Rural Health Mission (2005–2012): Madhya Pradesh Experience. Bhopal: NRHM India; 2013.Google Scholar
  25. Chaturvedi S, Ali S, Randive B, Sabde Y, Diwan V, De Costa A. Availability and distribution of safe abortion services in rural areas: a facility assessment study in Madhya Pradesh, India. Glob Health Action. 2015;8:26346.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Bahadur A, Mittal S, Sharma JB, Sehgal R. Socio-demographic profile of women undergoing abortion in a tertiary centre. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;278(4):329–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ram F, Mohanty S, Ram U. Understanding the distribution of BPL cards: All-India and selected states. Econ Pol Wkly. 2009;XLIV(7):66–71.Google Scholar
  28. Ram F, Paswan B, Ladu SL. India Facility Survey (Under Reproductive and Child Health Project) Phase - II, 2003. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences; 2005.Google Scholar
  29. Banerjee SK. Social and demographic attributes of access to safe abortion: A cross section baseline survey in three slected districts of Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: Ipas Development Foundation; 2013.Google Scholar
  30. Jat TR, Deo PR, Goicolea I, Hurtig A-K, San Sebastian M. The emergence of maternal health as a political priority in Madhya Pradesh, India: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:181.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Rutstein SO, Johnson K. The DHS Wealth Index. Calverton: ORC Macro; 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Roy TK, Jayachandran V, Banerjee SK. Economic conditions and fertility: is there a relationship. Econ Pol Wkly. 1999;34(42-43):3041–46.Google Scholar
  33. Filmer D, Pritchett LH. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data - or tears: An application to educational enrollment in states of India. Demography. 2001;38(1):115–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wagstaff A, Watanabe N. What difference does the choise of SES make in health inequality measurement? Health Econ. 2003;12:885–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Buchanan RM, Warvadekar J. Woman-centered research on access to safe abortion services and implications for behavioral change communication interventions: a cross-sectional study of women in Bihar and Jharkhand, India. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):175.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Warvadekar J. Pathways and consequences of unsafe abortion: A comparison among women with complications after induced and spontaneous abortions in Madhya Pradesh, India. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2012;118(Supplement 2):S113–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017