Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns

Krans, Elizabeth E.; Davis, Matthew M.

doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000118

Cited by 25 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(4) The most widely known model of group prenatal care in the United States is CenteringPregnancy ® , which was developed in the 1990s to empower women to choose health-promoting behaviors. (5) The program is founded on 3 components: assessment, education, and support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Prenatal Care Compared With Traditional Prenatal Care

Carter

Temming

Akin

et al. 2016

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

145

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To estimate the effect of group prenatal care on perinatal outcomes compared with traditional prenatal care. Data Sources We searched MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health literature [CINAHL], the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects [DARE], the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) and clinicaltrials.gov. Methods of Study Selection We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing group care with traditional prenatal care. The primary outcome was preterm birth. Secondary outcomes were low birthweight (LBW), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and breastfeeding initiation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I2 statistic. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Tabulations, Integration, and Results Four RCTs and ten observational studies met inclusion criteria. The rate of preterm birth was not significantly different with group care compared with traditional care (11 studies: pooled rates 7.9% vs. 9.3%, pooled RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.70–1.09). Group care was associated with a decreased rate of LBW overall (9 studies: pooled rate 7.5% group care vs. 9.5% traditional care; pooled RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69–0.96), but not among RCTs (4 studies: 7.9% group care vs. 8.7% traditional care, pooled RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73–1.16). There were no significant differences in NICU admission or breastfeeding initiation. Conclusion Available data suggest that women who participate in group care have similar rates of preterm birth, NICU admission, and breastfeeding.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Prenatal Care Compared With Traditional Prenatal Care

Carter

Temming

Akin

et al. 2016

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

145

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Group care (GC) is receiving increasing attention as an efficient and effective way to provide prenatal care. ( 1 ) The most widely known model of group prenatal care in the United States is CenteringPregnancy ® . ( 2 ) This two-hour, every-other-week program focuses on nutrition, exercise, social support, health self-awareness, and relaxation techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group versus traditional prenatal care in low-risk women delivering at term: a retrospective cohort study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGroup prenatal care (GC) models are receiving increasing attention as a means of preventing preterm birth; yet, there is limited data on whether group care improves perinatal outcomes in in women who deliver at term.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate our institutional experience with GC over the last decade and test the hypothesis that GC, compared to traditional individual care (TC), improves perinatal outcomes in women who deliver at term.Study DesignWe performed a retrospective cohort study of women delivering at term who participated in GC compared to TC. A group of 207 GC patients who delivered at term from 2004–2014 were matched in a 1:2 ratio to 414 patients with term singleton pregnancies who delivered at our institution during the same period by delivery year, maternal age, race, and insurance status. The primary outcome was low birthweight < 2500g. Secondary outcomes included early term birth (37.0–38 6/7 weeks), 5 minute APGAR score <7, special care nursery admission, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, neonatal demise, cesarean section, and number of prenatal visits. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using univariable statistics.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between the two matched groups. GC was associated with a significant reduction in low birthweight infants compared to TC (11.1% vs. 19.6%; RR 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.87). Patients in GC were significantly less likely than controls to require cesarean delivery, have low 5 min APGAR scores and need higher level neonatal care (NICU: 1.5% vs. 6.5%; RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.07–0.72). There were no significant differences in rates of early term birth and neonatal demise.ConclusionLow-risk women participating in GC and delivering at term had a lower risk of low birthweight and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared to women in TC. This suggests GC is a promising alternative to individual prenatal care to improve perinatal outcomes in addition to preterm birth.

show abstract

“…Also, the survey investigation of this study aimed to develop a financial support program, but we believe that additional measures are needed to ensure that pregnant women deliver healthy babies, such as consultation services for healthcare during pregnancy and emotional support 18 , 19 . In addition, interventions that include prenatal home visitations and prenatal-care groups for high-risk pregnancies would be particularly effective among low-income women [20] . Also, a study evaluating the intervention program needs to be performed after the policy has been implemented [21] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Financial Support Program for High Risk Pregnant Women

Ihnsook

Kim

2016

Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to develop a financial support program for high-risk pregnant women based on opinions obtained using a questionnaire survey.MethodsThe program development involved two steps: (1) developing a questionnaire through reviewing previous financial support programs for maternal care and then validating it via professional consultation; and (2) drafting a financial support program. Sixty professionals, 26 high-risk pregnant women, and 100 program implementers completed the questionnaire between August 2014 and October 2014.ResultsBased on the obtained professional consultation and survey investigation, the framework of the financial support program was constructed. The suggested recipients were mothers with early labor pains, mothers who have been hospitalized for > 3 weeks, and mothers who used uterine stimulant Pitocin during hospitalization. All hospitalization, medication, and examination costs needed to be supported considering the income level of the recipient.ConclusionA basic policy for financially supporting high-risk pregnant women has been developed. The efficacy and feasibility of the policy needs to be carefully examined in future studies.

show abstract

Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

Group Prenatal Care Compared With Traditional Prenatal Care

Group Prenatal Care Compared With Traditional Prenatal Care

Group versus traditional prenatal care in low-risk women delivering at term: a retrospective cohort study

Development of Financial Support Program for High Risk Pregnant Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About