This study aims to assess inequalities in skilled birth attendance and utilisation of caesarean section (CS) in Myanmar.

Cross-sectional study design.

We used secondary data from the Myanmar Demographic and Health Survey (2015–2016). Our outcome measures of skilled birth attendance and utilisation of CS were taken from the most recent birth of interviewed women. Absolute and relative inequalities across several sociodemographic characteristics were assessed and evaluated by calculating rate differences, rate ratio and concentration indexes.

More than one-third (36%, 95% CI 32.5% to 39.4%) of women gave birth without a skilled birth attendant present at their most recent birth. 40.7% (95% CI 37.8% to 43.7%) gave birth in healthcare facilities, and the CS rate was 19.7% (95% CI 17.9% to 21.8%) for their most recent birth. The highest proportion of birth without a skilled provider was found in the hilly regions and rural residents, poorest and less educated women, and those with less than four antenatal care visits. Inequalities in birth without a skilled provider were observed across regions, place of residence, wealth quintile, education level and number of antenatal care taken. The highest rate of CS was found among plain regions and urban residents, richest women, more than secondary education, those with more than four antenatal care visits and in private health facilities. Inequalities in CS utilisation were observed across place of residence, wealth quintiles, education level, number of antenatal care taken and type of health facilities.

This study provides evidence regarding inequalities in maternal health service utilisation in Myanmar. Increasing maternal health service availability and accessibility, promoting quality of care and health education campaigns to increase maternal health services utilisation are recommended.

The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has raised concerns regarding waning vaccine-induced immunity and durability. We evaluated protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant and its sublineages.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Electronic databases and other resources (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, MedRxiv and bioRxiv) were searched until December 2022.

We included studies that assessed the effectiveness of mRNA vaccine booster doses against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes caused by the subvariant.

Estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at different time points after the third-dose and fourth-dose vaccination were extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare VE of the third dose versus the primary series, no vaccination and the fourth dose at different time points. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach.

This review included 50 studies. The third-dose VE, compared with the primary series, against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 48.86% (95% CI 44.90% to 52.82%, low certainty) at ≥14 days, and gradually decreased to 38.01% (95% CI 13.90% to 62.13%, very low certainty) at ≥90 days after the third-dose vaccination. The fourth-dose VE peaked at 14–30 days (56.70% (95% CI 50.36% to 63.04%), moderate certainty), then quickly declined at 61–90 days (22% (95% CI 6.40% to 37.60%), low certainty). Compared with no vaccination, the third-dose VE was 75.84% (95% CI 40.56% to 111.12%, low certainty) against BA.1 infection, and 70.41% (95% CI 49.94% to 90.88%, low certainty) against BA.2 infection at ≥7 days after the third-dose vaccination. The third-dose VE against hospitalisation remained stable over time and maintained 79.30% (95% CI 58.65% to 99.94%, moderate certainty) at 91–120 days. The fourth-dose VE up to 60 days was 67.54% (95% CI 59.76% to 75.33%, moderate certainty) for hospitalisation and 77.88% (95% CI 72.55% to 83.21%, moderate certainty) for death.

The boosters provided substantial protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 6 months, although the duration of protection remains uncertain, suggesting the need for a booster dose within 6 months of the third-dose or fourth-dose vaccination. However, the certainty of evidence in our VE estimates varied from very low to moderate, indicating significant heterogeneity among studies that should be considered when interpreting the findings for public health policies.

CRD42023376698.