-
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 -
Social Work in Public Health Nov 2010This meta-analysis compares California to 13 states with regard to adequacy of prenatal care in the context of the major Medicaid expansion. It shows a reduction in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This meta-analysis compares California to 13 states with regard to adequacy of prenatal care in the context of the major Medicaid expansion. It shows a reduction in prenatal care inadequacy after 1992, especially in California. It also shows persistent racial ethnic disparities. By examining how California differed from other states, this study provides not only benchmarks for attaining the Healthy People 2010 goal of 90% adequacy but also possible strategies for achieving this goal. Attaining the Healthy People 2010 objective for prenatal care for California as a whole will require further efforts to understand and address racial/ethnic and insurance-related inequalities.
Topics: California; Female; Health Services Accessibility; Healthcare Disparities; Healthy People Programs; Humans; Insurance Coverage; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Racial Groups
PubMed: 21058214
DOI: 10.1080/19371910903344217 -
Cadernos de Saude Publica 2004This was a systematic literature review on publications in which prenatal care was investigated as a predictive factor for birthweight. The MEDLINE, Cochrane Library,... (Review)
Review
This was a systematic literature review on publications in which prenatal care was investigated as a predictive factor for birthweight. The MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and SciELO databases were searched using a combination of the following uniterms: "prenatal care", "antenatal care", "quality", "adequacy", "birthweight", and "low birthweight". Twenty-five studies were found: seventeen had a cross-sectional design, in addition to four cohort studies, three case-control studies, and one randomized trial. The adequacy indicators related to utilization (quantitative measures) and content of prenatal care (process or qualitative indicators). Most authors employed quantitative indicators, mainly the Kessner Index and the Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index. Qualitative criteria were used in only two studies. Most of the cross-sectional studies found a protective effect of prenatal care against low birthweight, whereas results of studies with other designs were conflicting. This review's findings highlight that the impact of prenatal care on birthweight is not unequivocal, mainly due to the effect of self-selection bias. Randomized trials are needed to elucidate such a relationship.
Topics: Birth Weight; Epidemiologic Studies; Female; Humans; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care
PubMed: 15486658
DOI: 10.1590/s0102-311x2004000500009 -
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 -
Maternal and Child Health Journal Jan 2012The purpose of this article is to systematically review the literature on group-based prenatal care related to patient participation, attendance, satisfaction,... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this article is to systematically review the literature on group-based prenatal care related to patient participation, attendance, satisfaction, knowledge, pregnancy and birth outcomes, and program cost. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO sources were searched for English-language articles published any time prior to June 2010. Manual searches of bibliographies were conducted and experts were consulted to identify possible sources. Descriptive, cross-sectional, cohort, and randomized control studies that assessed group-based prenatal care were selected. Of the 15 articles reviewed, 11 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis of the study attributes and outcome data related to patient participation, attendance, satisfaction, knowledge, as well as breastfeeding, pregnancy and birth outcomes, and program cost. Results from the review show that group prenatal care may be associated with improved patient and birth outcomes including reduction in the number of preterm deliveries, higher patient participation and satisfaction, and increased initiation of breastfeeding. Prenatal group care research is limited by relatively few studies, most of which lack rigor. The current model of prenatal group care lacks a theoretical framework for describing and evaluating group processes as well as intermediary factors of prenatal and birth outcomes. Research on group care would benefit from additional randomized controlled trials that assess cost and sustainability and formally evaluate group process and intermediary factors thought to account for improved outcomes.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Group Processes; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Models, Theoretical; Patient Participation; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Care; United States
PubMed: 21088988
DOI: 10.1007/s10995-010-0709-1 -
Neurourology and Urodynamics Jan 2024To evaluate the effectiveness of aerobic and/or resistance group exercise programs associated with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) during prenatal care for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of group aerobic and/or resistance exercise programs associated with pelvic floor muscle training during prenatal care for the prevention and treatment of urinary incontinence: A systematic review.
AIM
To evaluate the effectiveness of aerobic and/or resistance group exercise programs associated with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) during prenatal care for the prevention and treatment of urinary incontinence (UI) using the best level of evidence.
METHODS
A search was carried out in the MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, PEDro, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS databases, without restrictions. The terms "urinary incontinence" and "pregnant woman" were used. Randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials were included using aerobic and/or resistance exercise programs plus PFMT as an intervention compared to usual care. The Cochrane tool (RoB 2.0) and GRADE were used to assess risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively. Quantitative analysis was assessed by meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Five publications were included. There was a reduction in the reports of UI postintervention at 16 weeks (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74-0.93, one study, 762 women, random effects: p = 0.002) and after 3 months (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.95, one study, 722 women, random effects: p = 0.02), based on moderate certainty of evidence and improvement in UI-specific quality of life (MD: -2.42; 95% CI: -3.32 to -1.52, one study, 151 women, random effects: p < 0.00001), based on low quality of evidence. Other results showed no difference between the postintervention groups, with low and very low evidence.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate evidence that the aerobic and/or resistance exercise program associated with PFMT compared to usual care can reduce postintervention UI, as well as 3 months postintervention, and that it can improve UI-specific quality of life, but with low-evidence certainty.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Exercise Therapy; Pelvic Floor; Prenatal Care; Quality of Life; Resistance Training; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 37942825
DOI: 10.1002/nau.25309 -
Women and Birth : Journal of the... Nov 2021Poor mental health remains a significant cause of morbidity for childbearing women globally. (Review)
Review
PROBLEM
Poor mental health remains a significant cause of morbidity for childbearing women globally.
BACKGROUND
Group care has been shown to be effective in reducing select clinical outcomes, e.g., the rate of preterm birth, but less is known about the effect of Group Prenatal Care (GPC) on mental health outcomes of stress, depression and anxiety in pregnant women.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review of the current evidence of the effect of group pregnancy care on mental health and wellbeing outcomes (i.e., stress, depression and/or anxiety) in childbearing women.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of published studies in Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL, ProQuest databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. Databases were systematically searched without publication period restriction until Feb 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (including quasi-experimental) and observational studies comparing group care with standard pregnancy care. Included were studies published in English, whose primary outcome measures were stress, depression and/or anxiety.
RESULTS
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, five randomized controlled trials and four observational studies, involving 1585 women (39%) in GPC and 2456 women (61%) in standard (individual) pregnancy care. Although evidence is limited, where targeted education was integrated into the group pregnancy care model, significant reductions in depressive symptoms were observed. In addition, secondary analysis across several studies identified a subset of GPC women, i.e., higher risk for psychological symptoms, who reported a decrease in their depression, stress and anxiety symptoms, postpartum. Due to the diversity of group care structure and content and the lack of outcomes measures universally reported, a comprehensive meta-analysis could not be performed.
CONCLUSION
The evidence suggests improvements in some markers of psychological health outcomes with group pregnancy care. Future research should involve larger well-designed studies encompassing cross-population data using a validated scale that is comparable across diverse childbearing populations and clinical settings to better understand the impact of group pregnancy care.
Topics: Anxiety; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Mental Health; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Prenatal Care
PubMed: 33358645
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2020.12.004 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jun 2013To summarise evidence on the associations of maternal anaemia and prenatal iron use with maternal haematological and adverse pregnancy outcomes; and to evaluate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence on the associations of maternal anaemia and prenatal iron use with maternal haematological and adverse pregnancy outcomes; and to evaluate potential exposure-response relations of dose of iron, duration of use, and haemoglobin concentration in prenatal period with pregnancy outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed and Embase for studies published up to May 2012 and references of review articles.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of prenatal iron use and prospective cohort studies of prenatal anaemia; cross sectional and case-control studies were excluded.
RESULTS
48 randomised trials (17 793 women) and 44 cohort studies (1 851 682 women) were included. Iron use increased maternal mean haemoglobin concentration by 4.59 (95% confidence interval 3.72 to 5.46) g/L compared with controls and significantly reduced the risk of anaemia (relative risk 0.50, 0.42 to 0.59), iron deficiency (0.59, 0.46 to 0.79), iron deficiency anaemia (0.40, 0.26 to 0.60), and low birth weight (0.81, 0.71 to 0.93). The effect of iron on preterm birth was not significant (relative risk 0.84, 0.68 to 1.03). Analysis of cohort studies showed a significantly higher risk of low birth weight (adjusted odds ratio 1.29, 1.09 to 1.53) and preterm birth (1.21, 1.13 to 1.30) with anaemia in the first or second trimester. Exposure-response analysis indicated that for every 10 mg increase in iron dose/day, up to 66 mg/day, the relative risk of maternal anaemia was 0.88 (0.84 to 0.92) (P for linear trend<0.001). Birth weight increased by 15.1 (6.0 to 24.2) g (P for linear trend=0.005) and risk of low birth weight decreased by 3% (relative risk 0.97, 0.95 to 0.98) for every 10 mg increase in dose/day (P for linear trend<0.001). Duration of use was not significantly associated with the outcomes after adjustment for dose. Furthermore, for each 1 g/L increase in mean haemoglobin, birth weight increased by 14.0 (6.8 to 21.8) g (P for linear trend=0.002); however, mean haemoglobin was not associated with the risk of low birth weight and preterm birth. No evidence of a significant effect on duration of gestation, small for gestational age births, and birth length was noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Daily prenatal use of iron substantially improved birth weight in a linear dose-response fashion, probably leading to a reduction in risk of low birth weight. An improvement in prenatal mean haemoglobin concentration linearly increased birth weight.
Topics: Anemia, Iron-Deficiency; Dietary Supplements; Female; Ferritins; Hemoglobins; Humans; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Iron; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23794316
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3443 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2020An accurate assessment of the adequacy of prenatal care utilization is critical to inform the relationship between prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes. This systematic...
BACKGROUND
An accurate assessment of the adequacy of prenatal care utilization is critical to inform the relationship between prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review critically appraises the evidence on measurement properties of prenatal care utilization indices and provides recommendations about which index is the most useful for this purpose.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception to October 2018 using keywords related to indices of prenatal care utilization. No language restrictions were imposed. Studies were included if they evaluated the reliability, validity, or responsiveness of at least one index of adequacy of prenatal care utilization. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. We conducted an evidence synthesis using predefined criteria to appraise the measurement properties of the indices.
RESULTS
From 2664 studies initially screened, 13 unique studies evaluated the measurement properties of at least one index of prenatal care utilization. Most of the indices of adequacy of prenatal care currently used in research and clinical practice have been evaluated for at least some form of reliability and/or validity. Evidence about the responsiveness to change of these indices is absent from these evaluations. The Adequacy Perinatal Care Utilization Index (APNCUI) and the Kessner Index are supported by moderate evidence regarding their reliability, predictive and concurrent validity.
CONCLUSION
The scientific literature has not comprehensively reported the measurement properties of commonly used indices of prenatal care utilization, and there is insufficient research to inform the choice of the best index. Lack of strong evidence about which index is the best to measure prenatal care utilization has important implications for tracking health care utilization and for formulating prenatal care recommendations.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Delivery of Health Care; Female; Humans; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Care; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 32183724
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2822-5 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Aug 2019This study sought to examine the effect of prenatal exercise on birth outcomes in women with pre-gestational diseases, including chronic hypertension, type 1 diabetes,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study sought to examine the effect of prenatal exercise on birth outcomes in women with pre-gestational diseases, including chronic hypertension, type 1 diabetes, and type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
A structured search of online databases up to June 8, 2018 was conducted. Studies of all designs and languages were included if they contained information on the population (pregnant women with pre-gestational diseases), intervention (subjective or objective measures of frequency, intensity, duration, volume, or type of exercise), comparator (no exercise or different frequency, intensity, duration, volume, or type of exercise), and outcome (birth weight, macrosomia [birth weight >4000 g], large for gestational age, low birth weight [<2500 g], small for gestational age [<10th percentile], Apgar score, preterm birth [<37 weeks], Caesarean section (CS), preeclampsia, and glycemic control).
RESULTS
A total of five studies (n = 221 women) were included. Canadian Task Classification was designated as level I. "Low" to "very low" quality evidence revealed that prenatal exercise reduced the odds of CS by 55% in women with type 1 diabetes and chronic hypertension (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.22-0.95, I = 0%). The odds of low (<2500 g) or high (>4000 g) birth weight, Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes, preeclampsia, and preterm birth were not different between women who exercised and those who did not.
CONCLUSION
Prenatal exercise reduced the odds of CS and did not increase the risk of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes in mothers with pre-gestational medical conditions. Findings are based on limited evidence, thus suggesting a need for high-quality investigations on exercise in this population of women.
Topics: Adult; Diabetes, Gestational; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Prediabetic State; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Care; Young Adult
PubMed: 30598427
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.10.007