Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Summary of public sector antenatal care utilization in Indian states from the nationwide Reproductive and Child Health Household Level Survey of 2002–2004.

From: Is the HIV burden in India being overestimated?

        SLI of women who used government/municipal hospital for antenatal care SLI of women who used any public sector facility for antenatal care   
States 2005 population* (millions) 2005 population 15–49 years* (millions) Sample of women who provided data regarding antenatal care % who received antenatal care Percent who received antenatal care at public sector government/municipal hospital† Percent who received antenatal care at other public sector facilities‡ % in lower SLI half§ % in upper SLI half§ % in lower SLI half§ % in upper SLI half§ 2005 median antenatal sentinel surveillance HIV prevalence¶(%) 2005 HIV estimate15–49 years¶(1000s)
High prevalence states (I)#
Andhra Pradesh 80.0 42.7 5,476 95.1 23.9 9.0 62.4 37.6 64.1 35.9 2.00 1,452
Karnataka 56.0 30.0 7,543 90.5 24.7 13.4 61.0 39.0 65.3 34.7 1.25 640
Maharashtra 104.2 55.0 9,284 94.0 14.8 29.5 43.5 56.5 63.0 37.0 1.25 1,232
Tamil Nadu 65.2 36.3 7,480 99.3 29.7 26.2 70.4 29.6 74.5 25.5 0.50 366
High prevalence states (II)**
Manipur 2.3 1.2 3,592 67.1 28.5 23.1 34.1 65.9 42.7 57.3 1.25 32
Nagaland 2.1 1.1 2,326 56.4 21.6 13.3 38.2 61.8 48.1 51.9 1.63 26
Other south Indian state††
Kerala 33.0 18.3 3,355 99.7 30.6 2.6 68.1 31.9 67.8 32.2 0.25 68
Other Indian states (I)‡‡
Gujarat 53.8 29.0 7,349 88.4 7.2 19.0 52.1 47.9 65.8 34.2 0.25 103
Punjab 26.0 13.8 4,552 90.9 25.7 22.4 56.2 43.8 63.7 36.3 0.13 28
West Bengal 85.0 45.2 5,024 90.4 15.8 44.9 44.7 55.3 70.0 30.0 0.84 395
Other Indian states (II)§§
Madhya Pradesh 65.2 31.6 15,909 75.1 14.3 15.5 36.7 63.3 50.0 50.0 0.25 99
Orissa 39.1 20.3 9,178 76.4 23.9 28.4 40.9 59.1 54.4 45.6 0.25 84
Rajasthan 61.8 29.2 13,505 67.1 13.9 24.5 36.4 63.6 49.0 51.0 0.13 87
Other Indian states (III)¶¶
Bihar 90.7 41.2 18,304 37.4 3.9 1.9 54.1 45.9 54.7 45.3 0## 87
Jharkhand 29.5 14.2 7,437 51.2 7.7 6.2 51.4 48.6 53.5 46.5 0.13 33
Uttar Pradesh 181.7 83.6 30,986 55.8 12.0 14.0 38.8 61.2 52.8 47.2 0## 171
  1. *The states shown in this table are estimated to have 89% of India's population; population in 2005 estimated by calculating the exponential annual growth rate for each state from the 1991 and 2001 censuses [14,15], and using 90% of this annual estimate for growth from 2001 to 2005, except for Tamil Nadu and Kerala for which the estimate from the last decade was used as the growth rate was already very low between the two censuses.
  2. †Considered equivalent to large public sector hospitals, the category from which sentinel surveillance data are used for estimating HIV burden in each state.
  3. ‡All other categories of public sector health facilities, including primary health centres and sub-centres, which are not included in the sentinel surveillance based HIV estimation.
  4. §SLI is standard of living index based on living conditions and assets, which was similar to but not exactly the same as the SLI used in our population-based study; cut-off values to define lower and upper halves calculated based on the distribution of SLI in all members of the sampled households in each state, as the sampling used in this survey was expected to yield a sample representative of the population of each state [8].
  5. ¶Median HIV prevalence and HIV estimate in adults for 2005 as calculated by NACO [2].
  6. #High prevalence states according to NACO, which have large population; Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are in south India and Maharashtra is in west India.
  7. **High prevalence states according to NACO, which have small population; these two states are in north-east India.
  8. ††Kerala, the other south Indian state shown separately, as it has almost complete antenatal coverage and the SLI distribution of women using public sector antenatal care is similar to the other south Indian states but is not considered to be a high HIV prevalence state.
  9. ‡‡Other Indian states with a high total level of antenatal care coverage.
  10. §§Other Indian states with a medium total level of antenatal care coverage.
  11. ¶¶Other Indian states with a relatively low total level of antenatal care coverage.
  12. ##If the median HIV prevalence for a state is zero at sentinel surveillance antenatal clinics, in the NACO method of calculating HIV burden this is replaced with the average rate for that state during the last three years, but if this average rate is also zero then the average rate for the low prevalence states for 2003 is used [7].