-
Reproductive Health Dec 2017It is critical to increase the uptake of interventions proven to be effective to improve maternal and perinatal outcomes. Supply kits have been suggested to be a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
It is critical to increase the uptake of interventions proven to be effective to improve maternal and perinatal outcomes. Supply kits have been suggested to be a feasible strategy designed to ensure timely availability and effective follow-up of care.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the uptake, effectiveness and safety of supply kits for maternal care.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, Campbell Collaboration, Lilacs, Embase and unpublished studies were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies that reported the efficacy, safety and use of supply kits for maternal healthcare were eligible. Participants were pregnant women or in childbirth. Supply kits were defined as a collection of medicines, supplies or instruments packaged together with the aim of conducting a healthcare task.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and methodological and quality assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
24 studies were included: 4 of them were systematic reviews and 20 primary studies. Eighteen studies evaluated a so-called "clean delivery kit". In all but two studies, the kits were used by more than half of the participants. A meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate due to the heterogeneity in study design, in the components of the interventions implemented, in the content of the kits, and in outcomes. Nine studies assessed neonatal outcomes and found statistically significant reductions in cord infection, sepsis and tetanus-related mortality in the intervention group. Three studies showed evidence of reduced neonatal mortality (OR 0.52, 0.60 and 0.71) with statistically significant confidence intervals in all cases. Four studies reported odd ratios for maternal mortality, but only one showed evidence of a statistically significant decrease in this outcome but it was ascribed to hand washing prior to childbirth and not with the use of kits.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests potential benefits in the use of supply kits to improve maternal and neonatal health. However, the observational nature of the studies, the heterogeneity and the use of kits incorporated within complex interventions limit the interpretation of the findings.
Topics: Equipment and Supplies, Hospital; Female; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Maternal Health Services; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care
PubMed: 29237472
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-017-0436-9 -
Journal of Applied Research in... May 2022Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities face poorer reproductive and pregnancy outcomes partially due to health care inequity. Our objective was to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities face poorer reproductive and pregnancy outcomes partially due to health care inequity. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review of reproductive and pregnancy related health care among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed three databases for keywords pertaining to pregnancy, reproductive health, and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Two reviewers screened abstracts and extracted full text. We synthesised included papers, identifying common themes.
RESULTS
Thirty-six papers met review criteria. Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities had lower fertility rates and were less likely to receive adequate sexual education compared to peers. While most women received prenatal care, uptake was lower and received later than women without intellectual and developmental disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS
Pregnancy-related health care is often lacking for women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. There are gaps inhibiting our understanding which prevents action to reduce health disparities.
Topics: Child; Delivery of Health Care; Developmental Disabilities; Female; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Male; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Sexual Behavior
PubMed: 35064736
DOI: 10.1111/jar.12977 -
Journal of Perinatology : Official... Mar 2023Prenatal opioid exposure has recently risen four-fold with limited data on the developmental effects on neonatal physiology. The objective of this systematic review is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Prenatal opioid exposure has recently risen four-fold with limited data on the developmental effects on neonatal physiology. The objective of this systematic review is to develop an association between prenatal opioid exposure and fetal and neonatal cardiac and autonomic development and function. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA Guidelines, and searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science between May 25 and October 27, 2020. Twenty studies fit inclusion criteria, in four categories: (1) fetal cardiac outcomes, (2) neonatal cardiac outcomes, (3) noninvasive autonomic outcomes, and (4) clinical and behavioral measures. For the meta-analysis, three studies (total of 210 subjects) were included. Effect sizes were measured as the mean difference in fetal heart rate between opioid-exposed and non-exposed groups. Mothers with prenatal opioid use had a significantly lower fetal heart rate as compared to mothers without prenatal opioid use, requiring further studies to determine clinical significance.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prenatal Care; Mothers; Fetus
PubMed: 35906283
DOI: 10.1038/s41372-022-01466-7 -
Journal of Perinatal Medicine Jun 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the risk of inadequate prenatal care and pregnancy outcome among incarcerated pregnant individuals in the United... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the risk of inadequate prenatal care and pregnancy outcome among incarcerated pregnant individuals in the United States. PubMed/MedLine, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science were searched from inception up to March 30th, 2022. Studies were included if they reported the risk of inadequate prenatal care and/or pregnancy outcomes among incarcerated pregnant individuals in the United States jails or prisons. Adequacy of prenatal care was quantified by Kessner index. The random-effects model was used to pool the mean differences or odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan software. Nine studies were included in the final review. A total of 11,534 pregnant individuals, of whom 2,544 were incarcerated while pregnant, and 8,990 who were matched non-incarcerated pregnant individuals serving as control group, were utilized. Compared to non-incarcerated pregnancies, incarcerated pregnant individuals were at higher risk of inadequate prenatal care (OR 2.99 [95% CI: 1.60, 5.61], p<0.001) and were more likely to have newborns with low birthweight (OR 1.66 [95% CI: 1.19, 2.32], p=0.003). There was no significant difference between incarcerated and matched control pregnancies in the rates of preterm birth and stillbirth. The findings of the current systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that incarcerated pregnant individuals have an increased risk of inadequate prenatal care. Considering the limited number of current studies, further research is indicated to both assess whether the risk of inadequate prenatal care has negative impact on prenatal outcomes for this population and to determine the steps that can be taken to enhance prenatal care for all pregnant individuals incarcerated in the United States prisons.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; United States; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Care; Premature Birth; Stillbirth; Prisons
PubMed: 36394545
DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2022-0412 -
Reproductive Health Mar 2018In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health... (Review)
Review
In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. In low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, this model could be adapted to address low antenatal care uptake and improve quality. However, evidence on key attributes of a group care model for low-resource settings remains scant. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on models of group antenatal care in LMICs to identify attributes that may increase the relevance, acceptability and effectiveness of group ANC in such settings. We systematically searched five databases and conducted hand and reference searches. We also conducted key informant interviews with researchers and program implementers who have introduced group antenatal care models in LMICs. Using a pre-defined evidence summary template, we extracted evidence on key attributes-like session content and frequency, and group composition and organization-of group care models introduced across LMIC settings. Our systematic literature review identified nine unique descriptions of group antenatal care models. We supplemented this information with evidence from 10 key informant interviews. We synthesized evidence from these 19 data sources to identify attributes of group care models for pregnant women that appeared consistently across all of them. We considered these components that are fundamental to the delivery of group antenatal care. We also identified attributes that need to be tailored to the context in which they are implemented to meet local standards for comprehensive ANC, for example, the number of sessions and the session content. We compiled these attributes to codify a composite "generic" model of group antenatal care for adaptation and implementation in LMIC settings. With this combination of standard and flexible components, group antenatal care, a service delivery alternative that has been successfully introduced and implemented in high-income country settings, can be adapted for improving provision and experiences of care for pregnant women in LMIC. Any conclusions about the benefits of this model for women, babies, and health systems in LMICs, however, must be based on robust evaluations of group antenatal care programs in those settings.
Topics: Developing Countries; Female; Health Resources; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Poverty; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care
PubMed: 29506531
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-018-0476-9 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2017Antenatal care models vary widely around the world, reflecting local contexts, drivers and resources. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the impact of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antenatal care models vary widely around the world, reflecting local contexts, drivers and resources. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the impact of multi-component antenatal care interventions on service delivery and outcomes in many countries since the 1980s. Some have applied entirely new schemes, while others have modified existing care delivery approaches. Systematic reviews (SRs) indicate that some specific antenatal interventions are more effective than others; however the causal mechanisms leading to better outcomes are poorly understood, limiting implementation and future research. As a first step in identifying what might be making the difference we conducted a scoping review of interventions tested in RCTs in order to establish a taxonomy of antenatal care models.
METHODS
A protocol-driven systematic search was undertaken of databases for RCTs and SRs reporting antenatal care interventions. Results were unrestricted by time or locality, but limited to English language. Key characteristics of both experimental and control interventions in the included trials were mapped using SPIO (Study design; Population; Intervention; Outcomes) criteria and the intervention and principal outcome measures were described. Commonalities and differences between the components that were being tested in each study were identified by consensus, resulting in a comprehensive description of emergent models for antenatal care interventions.
RESULTS
Of 13,050 articles retrieved, we identified 153 eligible articles including 130 RCTs in 34 countries. The interventions tested in these trials varied from the number of visits to the location of care provision, and from the content of care to the professional/lay group providing that care. In most studies neither intervention nor control arm was well described. Our analysis of the identified trials of antenatal care interventions produced the following taxonomy: Universal provision model (for all women irrespective of health state or complications); Restricted 'lower-risk'-based provision model (midwifery-led or reduced/flexible visit approach for healthy women); Augmented provision model (antenatal care as in Universal provision above but augmented by clinical, educational or behavioural intervention); Targeted 'higher-risk'-based provision model (for woman with defined clinical or socio-demographic risk factors). The first category was most commonly tested in low-income countries (i.e. resource-poor settings), particularly in Asia. The other categories were tested around the world. The trials included a range of care providers, including midwives, nurses, doctors, and lay workers.
CONCLUSIONS
Interventions can be defined and described in many ways. The intended antenatal care population group proved the simplest and most clinically relevant way of distinguishing trials which might otherwise be categorised together. Since our review excluded non-trial interventions, the taxonomy does not represent antenatal care provision worldwide. It offers a stable and reproducible approach to describing the purpose and content of models of antenatal care which have been tested in a trial. It highlights a lack of reported detail of trial interventions and usual care processes. It provides a baseline for future work to examine and test the salient characteristics of the most effective models, and could also help decision-makers and service planners in planning implementation.
Topics: Adult; Female; Health Services Research; Humans; Models, Organizational; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28056877
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-1186-3 -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022: Child marriage is a serious public health issue with dire implications at the individual and societal level. Almost half of all child marriages globally originate from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Child marriage is a serious public health issue with dire implications at the individual and societal level. Almost half of all child marriages globally originate from South Asia. The aim of this study is to identify consistent factors associated with and resulting from child marriage in South Asia through a review of available evidence. This systematic review adhered to the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Six computerized bibliographic databases, namely PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, PUBMED, and Scopus were searched. Retrieved studies were exported to EndNote and screened for eligibility using pre-determined criteria. The quality of the included studies was rated using 14 quality appraisal criteria derived from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Tool. A total of 520 articles were retrieved from six databases. Of these, 13 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in this study. Factors consistently associated with child marriage in South Asia were rural residence, low level of education, poor economic background, low exposure to mass media and religion (Hindu and Muslim in particular countries). Maternal health care factors resulting from child marriage included: low utilization of antenatal care services, low institutional delivery, and low delivery assistance by a skilled birth attendant. Child marriage results from an interplay of economic and social forces. Therefore, to address the complex nature of child marriage, efforts targeting improvement in education, employment, exposure to health information via mass media, and gender egalitarianism are required. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42020190410].
Topics: United States; Child; Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Marriage; Maternal Health Services; Educational Status; Prenatal Care; Asia
PubMed: 36429857
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192215138 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2023Immunization is one of the most cost-effective measures to prevent morbidity and mortality in children. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immunization is one of the most cost-effective measures to prevent morbidity and mortality in children. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the pooled prevalence of incomplete immunization among children in Africa as well as its determinants. PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct, and online institutional repository homes were searched. Studies published within English language, with full text available for searching, and studies conducted in Africa were included in this meta-analysis. A pooled prevalence, Sub-group analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were conducted. Out of 1305 studies assessed, 26 met our criteria and were included in this study. The pooled prevalence of incomplete immunization was 35.5% (95% CI: 24.4, 42.7), I = 92.1%). Home birth (AOR=2.7; 95% CI: 1.5-4.9), rural residence (AOR = 4.6; 95% CI: 1.1-20.1), lack of antenatal care visit (AOR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.4-5.1), lack of knowledge of immunizations (AOR=2.4; 95% CI: 1.3-4.6), and maternal illiteracy (AOR = 1.7: 95%CI: 1.3-2.0) were associated with incomplete immunization. In Africa, the prevalence of incomplete immunization is high. It is important to promote urban residency, knowledge of immunization and antenatal follow up care.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Child; Vaccination; Africa; Immunization; Prenatal Care; Prevalence
PubMed: 37144686
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2202125 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2019Group visits for chronic medical conditions in non-pregnant populations have demonstrated successful outcomes including greater weight loss compared to individual visits... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Group visits for chronic medical conditions in non-pregnant populations have demonstrated successful outcomes including greater weight loss compared to individual visits for weight management. It is plausible that group prenatal care can similarly assist women in meeting gestational weight gain goals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of group vs. traditional prenatal care on gestational weight gain.
METHODS
A keyword search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar was performed up to April 2017. Studies were included if they compared gestational weight gain in a group prenatal care setting to traditional prenatal care in either randomized controlled trials, cohort, or case-control studies. The primary and secondary outcomes were excessive and adequate gestational weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine guidelines. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q test and I statistic. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and confidence intervals (CI) were reported with random-effects models from the randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies.
RESULTS
One RCT, one secondary analysis of an RCT, one study with "random assignment", and twelve cohort studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 13,779 subjects. Thirteen studies used the CenteringPregnancy model, defined by 10 sessions that emphasize goal setting and self-monitoring. Studies targeted specific populations such as adolescents, African-Americans, Hispanics, active-duty military or their spouses, and women with obesity or gestational diabetes. There were no significant differences in excessive [7 studies: pooled rates 47% (1806/3582) vs. 43% (3839/8521), RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23] or adequate gestational weight gain [6 studies: pooled rates 31% (798/2875) vs. 30% (1410/5187), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.08] in group and traditional prenatal care among the nine studies that reported categorical gestational weight gain outcomes in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Group prenatal care was not associated with excessive or adequate gestational weight gain in the meta-analysis. Since outcomes were overall inconsistent, we propose that prenatal care models (e.g., group vs. traditional) should be evaluated in a more rigorous fashion with respect to gestational weight gain.
Topics: Adolescent; Delivery of Health Care; Diabetes, Gestational; Ethnicity; Female; Gestational Weight Gain; Goals; Group Processes; Humans; Military Personnel; Obesity; Pregnancy; Pregnancy in Adolescence; Prenatal Care
PubMed: 30626345
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-2148-8 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Sep 2017Group prenatal care (GPC) models have been gaining popularity in recent years. Studies of high-risk groups have shown improved outcomes. Our objective was to review and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Group prenatal care (GPC) models have been gaining popularity in recent years. Studies of high-risk groups have shown improved outcomes. Our objective was to review and summarize outcomes for women in GPC for women with specific high-risk conditions.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of Ovid, PubMed, and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies reporting the effects of group prenatal care in high-risk populations. Studies were included if they reported on pregnancy outcome results for women using GPC. We also contacted providers known to be utilizing GPC for specific high-risk women. Descriptive results were compiled and summarized by high-risk population.
RESULTS
We identified 37 reports for inclusion (8 randomized trials, 23 nonrandomized studies, 6 reports of group outcomes without controls). Preterm birth was found to be decreased among low-income and African American women. Attendance at prenatal visits was shown to increase among women in GPC in the following groups: Opioid Addiction, Adolescents, and Low-Income. Improved weight trajectories and compliance with the IOM's weight recommendations were found in adolescents. Increased rates of breastfeeding were found in adolescents and African Americans. Increased satisfaction with care was found in adolescents and African Americans. Pregnancy knowledge was increased among adolescents, as was uptake of LARC. Improved psychological outcomes were found among adolescents and low-income women. Studies in women with diabetes demonstrated that fewer women required treatment with medication when exposed to GPC, and for those requiring treatment with insulin, GPC individuals required less than half the dose. Among women with tobacco use, those who had continued to smoke after finding out they were pregnant were 5 times more likely to quit later in pregnancy if they were engaged in GPC.
CONCLUSIONS
Several groups of high-risk pregnant women may have benefits from engaging in group prenatal care. Because there is a paucity of high-quality, well-controlled studies, more trials in high-risk women are needed to determine whether it improves outcomes and costs of pregnancy-related care.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy, High-Risk; Premature Birth; Prenatal Care; Psychotherapy, Group; Young Adult
PubMed: 28962601
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-017-1522-2