Comparative effectiveness of group and individual prenatal care on gestational weight gain

Evaluating the Impact of CenteringPregnancy Program Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Gestational Weight Gain

Introduction: The CenteringPregnancy (CP) program-proven to reduce preterm births-was modified to achieve more optimal gestational weight gain (GWG) by an intentional incorporation of nutrition education. We compared the effect of the modified CP program versus individual prenatal care (IPNC) on GWG. Methods: This observational study used linked birth certificate data and hospital discharge records of women who received prenatal care (PNC) in South Carolina Midlands' obstetric clinics between 2015 and 2019. Linear and multinomial logistic regressions were used to compare participants in CP (n = 568) versus IPNC on weight gain, measured by total GWG (delivery weight minus prepregnancy weight), weekly rate of weight gain, and meeting the Institute of Medicine's recommendations (inadequate, adequate, and excessive GWG). Nonrandom assignment to program was controlled by propensity scoring. Results: CP participants differed from IPNC participants in race, nulliparous, education, and type of health insurance, but not in parity or month PNC began (p-Value <0.05). CP and IPNC participants had a similar GWG experience: total GWG (coef(β) = -0.054; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.78 to 0.6), total weekly weight gain (coef(β) = -0.004; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), total GWG category (inadequate GWG: RRR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.64-1.21, and excessive GWG: relative risk ratio (RRR) = 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20 vs. adequate), and weekly weight gain category (inadequate GWG: RRR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, and excessive GWG: RRR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.61-1.13 vs. adequate). Conclusion: The CP program with an enhanced nutritional knowledge component was not associated with achieving recommended GWG. Further investigation is needed to explain the lack of impact.

Adequacy of prenatal care utilisation and gestational weight gain among women with depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is common during pregnancy, can elevate risk for excessive or inadequate gestational weight gain (GWG), and is associated with both underutilisation and overutilisation of prenatal care. Whether GWG is associated with adequacy of prenatal care among women with and without depression in the United States is unknown. This study evaluated whether adequacy of prenatal care differed by depression status and GWG.

METHODS

Data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System from 1,379,870 women who were pregnant with a singleton and delivered at 37-42 weeks gestation during 2016 to 2018 were included. Depression was self-reported. The Kotelchuck index was used to evaluate adequacy of prenatal care. Maternal weight gain was compared to GWG guidelines.

RESULTS

Approximately 13.1% of the sample experienced depression during pregnancy. Although those with depression had increased odds of both inadequate and above adequate levels of prenatal care, this association was no longer significant after accounting for demographics, medical comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors. Individuals with inadequate levels of prenatal care with a normal pre-pregnancy body mass index gained less weight during pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between depression and prenatal care utilisation seems driven by demographic, medical comorbidity, and socioeconomic variables. Weight outcomes were associated with inadequate prenatal care utilisation.

CenteringPregnancy: A Review of Implementation and Outcomes

Importance

CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a model for group prenatal care associated with improved perinatal outcomes for preterm birth and low birthweight, increased rates of breastfeeding, and higher rates of patient and clinician satisfaction.

Objective

The study aims to review the literature related to perinatal outcomes associated with CP, benefits and barriers to implementation, and utility of the model.

Evidence

An electronic-based search was performed in PubMed using the search terms "CenteringPregnancy" OR "Centering Pregnancy," revealing 221 articles.

Results

The CP model improves patient centeredness, efficiency, and equality in prenatal care. Challenges include administrative buy-in, limited resources, and financial support. Multisite retrospective studies of CP demonstrate improved maternal, neonatal, postpartum, and well-being outcomes, especially for participants from minority backgrounds; however, prospective studies had mixed results. CenteringPregnancy is feasibly implemented with high tenet fidelity in several low- and middle-income settings with improved perinatal outcomes compared with traditional care.

Conclusions

CenteringPregnancy is feasible to implement, largely accepted by communities, and shows positive qualitative and quantitative health outcomes. This body of literature supports CP as a potential tool for decreasing racial inequalities in prenatal access, quality of care, and maternal mortality. Further investigation is necessary to inform obstetric clinicians about the potential outcome differences that exist between group and traditional prenatal care.

Group vs Individual Prenatal Care and Gestational Diabetes Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The impact of group-based prenatal care (GPNC) model in the US on the risk of gestational diabetes (GD) and related adverse obstetric outcomes is unknown.

Objective

To determine the effects of the GPNC model on risk of GD, its progression, and related adverse obstetric outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a single-site, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted between February 2016 and March 2020 at a large health care system in Greenville, South Carolina. Participants were individuals aged 14 to 45 years with pregnancies earlier than 21 weeks' gestational age; follow-up continued to 8 weeks post partum. This study used an intention-to-treat analysis, and data were analyzed from March 2021 to July 2022.

Interventions

Eligible participants were randomized to receive either CenteringPregnancy, a widely used GPNC model, with 10 group-based sessions or traditional individual prenatal care (IPNC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the incidence of GD diagnosed between 24 and 30 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes included progression to A2 GD (ie, GD treated with medications) and GD-related adverse obstetric outcomes (ie, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, and large for gestational age). Log binomial models were performed to estimate risk differences (RDs), 95% CIs, and P values between GPNC and IPNC groups, adjusting for all baseline covariates.

Results

Of all 2348 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.1 [5.4] years; 952 Black participants [40.5%]; 502 Hispanic participants [21.4%]; 863 White participants [36.8%]), 1176 participants were randomized to the GPNC group and 1174 were randomized to the IPNC group. Among all participants, 2144 (91.3%) completed a GD screening (1072 participants [91.3%] in GPNC vs 1071 [91.2%] in IPNC). Overall, 157 participants (6.7%) developed GD, and there was no difference in GD incidence between the GPNC (83 participants [7.1%]) and IPNC (74 participants [6.3%]) groups, with an adjusted RD of 0.7% (95% CI, -1.2% to 2.7%). Among participants with GD, GPNC did not reduce the risk of progression to A2 GD (adjusted RD, -6.1%; 95% CI, -21.3% to 9.1%), preeclampsia (adjusted RD, -7.9%; 95% CI, -17.8% to 1.9%), cesarean delivery (adjusted RD, -8.2%; 95% CI, -12.2% to 13.9%), and large for gestational age (adjusted RD, -1.2%; 95% CI, -6.1% to 3.8%) compared with IPNC.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial among medically low-risk pregnant individuals, the risk of GD was similar between participants who received GPNC intervention and traditional IPNC, indicating that GPNC may be a feasible treatment option for some patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02640638.

A Qualitative Study of Motivators, Strategies, Barriers, and Learning Needs Related to Healthy Cooking during Pregnancy

Nutrition during pregnancy has lifelong impacts on the health of mother and child. However, this life stage presents unique challenges to healthy cooking and eating. Cooking interventions show promising results, but often lack theoretical basis and rigorous evaluation. The objective of this formative, qualitative study was to explore motivators, strategies, and barriers related to healthy cooking during pregnancy. Pregnant individuals’ preferences for a cooking education program were also explored. We conducted five focus groups with pregnant individuals (n = 20) in Southeast Michigan in 2019. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, then double coded by two members of the research team. Mean gestational age was 18.3 ± 9.6 weeks. Common motivators included feeding other children, avoiding pregnancy complications, promoting fetal growth, and avoiding foodborne illness. Challenges included pregnancy symptoms, navigating nutrition recommendations, mental energy of meal planning, family preferences, and time constraints. Strategies employed were meal planning and including a variety of foods. Participants identified organizational strategies, recipes, nutrition information, and peer support as important components of a cooking intervention during pregnancy. This study characterized multiple challenges to healthy home cooking during pregnancy, providing novel insight to inform the development of cooking skills education programs during this important life stage.

Group Prenatal Care as a Strategy to Address Diabesity

Group prenatal care is a health care delivery model that utilizes shared medical appointments to place greater focus on patient education, mutual support, and increased time with the clinician to promote a healthy pregnancy. Several studies suggest that medically low-risk women participating in group prenatal care have improved pregnancy outcomes, but the same tenants can likely be used to help women with diabetes and obesity achieve healthy outcomes during pregnancy and throughout their life course. This chapter will review the background, care model, and evidence regarding group medical visits for pregnant women with diabetes and obesity.

Health Care Experience Among Women Who Completed Group Prenatal Care (CenteringPregnancy) Compared to Individual Prenatal Care Within Military Treatment Facilities

This study compared TRICARE, the health care program of the United States Department of Defense Military Health System, beneficiaries in CenteringPregnancy, an enhanced prenatal care model, to women in individual prenatal care within the same military treatment facility. Maternity patient experience ratings from May 2014 to February 2016 were compiled from the TRICARE Outpatient Satisfaction Survey. Centering patients had 1.91 higher odds of being satisfied with access to care (p < .01, 95% CI = 1.2-3.1) than women in individual care. Specifically, the saw provider within 15 minutes of appointment measure found Centering patients to have 2.00 higher odds of being satisfied than women in individual care (p < .01, 95% CI = 1.2-3.3). There were no other statistically significant differences between cohorts. Qualitative responses indicate most Centering patients surveyed had good experiences, appreciated the structure and communication with others, and would recommend the program. Providers identified command/leadership support, dedicated space, and buy-in from all staff as important factors for successful implementation. Enhanced prenatal care models may improve access to and experiences with care. Program evaluation will be important as the military health system continues to implement such programs.

Gestational weight gain and group prenatal care: a systematic review and 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 I² 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.

Excessive Gestational Weight Gain

Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is associated with an increasing incidence of maternal and neonatal complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, fetal macrosomia, and increased cesarean birth rates. In the United States, it is recommended that health care providers use an individualized approach to counsel a woman about pregnancy weight gain goals that is based on the woman's initial body mass index (BMI) and to track GWG throughout the pregnancy by evaluating maternal weight at each visit. Studies have shown that women entering pregnancy with a higher BMI are at increased risk for excessive GWG and postpartum weight retention. Research also demonstrates an increased risk of childhood obesity in children born to women with excessive GWG. Specific counseling about exercise and diet, as well as technology and motivational interviewing, are some tools prenatal care providers can use that have been shown to be effective in reducing excessive GWG. This article reviews the current research regarding maternal and neonatal risks associated with excessive GWG, as well as the interventions that have demonstrated promise for addressing this problem.

Activity Tracking Devices in Group Prenatal Care: A Feasibility Study

To evaluate the feasibility (adherence to the study protocol and satisfaction) of using an activity tracking device (ATD) in group prenatal care. Women participated if they (1) were in group prenatal care, (2) owned a smartphone, and (3) had no activity restrictions. Women were instructed to wear and sync the ATD daily. Protocol adherence and satisfaction were assessed via surveys. Mixed models assessed the relationship between gestational age and ATD data. Self-reported energy expenditure from the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) was compared with ATD-calculated energy expenditure. The baseline characteristics of the 49 women were as follows: 24 years old, prepregnancy body mass index 28, 80% Hispanic, 86% nulliparas, and 21 weeks of gestation. Of the 30 women who completed the follow-up survey, 47% self-reported wearing the ATD daily, 27% reported a lost or broken ATD, and 22% reported technical problems; however, 97% enjoyed wearing it, 100% would recommend it to a pregnant friend, and 77% thought it helped them reach activity goals. According to ATD data, the median active days were 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 21-79) and the median proportion of active days of potential days was 43.7% (IQR 15.4-77.1). For women who wore the ATD for the first 7 days, mean steps/day were 7574 (range 3076-15,828), active minutes/day were 277 (range 145-475), and sedentary hours/day were 12 (range 7.8-16.2). As gestational age increased, mean log steps decreased, mean active minutes decreased, and mean sedentary hours increased in unadjusted and adjusted models (p < 0.001 all comparisons). There were no differences in mean energy expenditure (MET-h/week) by PPAQ or ATD data at 28 weeks of gestation [231 (62-927 range) vs. 238 (212-290 range), p = 0.74] and at 36 weeks of gestation [145 (35-581 range) vs. 222 (196-272 range), p = 0.27]. Most women reported high satisfaction with an ATD in group prenatal care, yet adherence to the study protocol was low and ATD technical problems were common. As gestational age increased, activity decreased while sedentary time increased, suggesting that additional research is needed to find ways to engage women in physical activity during pregnancy.

A Qualitative Study of Women's Recall of Content and Skills Developed in Group Prenatal and Well-Baby Care 2 Years Later

INTRODUCTION

Group prenatal and well-baby care is a system of health care visits that occur in a group setting. Each individual session lasts approximately 2 hours, allowing more time for education and support than can occur in an individual visit. Compared with individual care, research suggests that group care is associated with similar or better short-term outcomes, but no studies have yet examined potential long-term benefits beyond one year postpartum. The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to elicit women's recall about content covered in group prenatal and well-baby care and whether they were or were not continuing to use skills discussed during group prenatal and well-baby care 2 or more years after their group ended.

METHODS

Eligible women participated in group prenatal and/or well-baby care between 2008 and 2012, were aged at least 18 years, and were English-speaking. Of the 127 eligible women, 32 were reached and 17 agreed to participate. Women were interviewed on average 3 years after group prenatal or well-baby care ended using a semistructured interview guide. Transcripts were reviewed and coded by each team member. Final codes and themes were identified using an iterative review process among the research team.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: sustained change, transferable skills, and group as a safe haven. All women were still using strategies discussed during group and had made sustained improvements in nutrition, stress management, and/or in the quality of their interactions with their children, partner, or families. The group environment was described as a safe haven: a respectful, nonjudgmental space that allowed women to share and support each other while learning new skills.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study to document that group prenatal and well-baby care is associated with long-term benefits in areas not yet reported in the literature: nutrition, family communication, and parenting.

Association of Gestational Weight Gain with Prenatal Care Model

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare gestational weight gain (GWG) among women in group and traditional prenatal care.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of women who received prenatal care between 2011 and 2015 in a setting in which low-risk women had the option of group prenatal care. Women with height and initial and final weight were eligible. Women who chose group prenatal care were compared with women who chose traditional prenatal care and gave birth during the same study period. A propensity score analysis was used to create a matched control group from women who received traditional prenatal care. Bivariable comparisons of demographics, maternal characteristics, and GWG as a categorical variable (inadequate, adequate, or excessive per the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines) were performed with chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. A logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the association of group prenatal care with excessive GWG.

RESULTS

The final sample included 818 women who received either group or traditional prenatal care and were matched according to age, body mass index (BMI), nulliparity, and marital status. In the unadjusted analysis, women in group prenatal care had lower odds of excessive GWG (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99), but the statistical significance of this finding did not persist in the adjusted analysis (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45-1.30). When the analyses were limited to women who had at least 5 group or traditional prenatal care visits, there were no differences in excessive GWG in unadjusted (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.24-3.96) analyses.

DISCUSSION

In this propensity score matched cohort study of predominantly Hispanic women, there were no differences in excessive GWG between women in group compared with traditional prenatal care. Further study is indicated to determine the relationship between prenatal care model and GWG outcomes.

Exploring perceptions of group antenatal Care in Urban India: results of a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Making high-quality health care available to all women during pregnancy is a critical strategy for improving perinatal outcomes for mothers and babies everywhere. Research from high-income countries suggests that antenatal care delivered in a group may be an effective way to improve the provision, experiences, and outcomes of care for pregnant women and newborns. A number of researchers and programmers are adapting group antenatal care (ANC) models for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), but the evidence base from these settings is limited and no studies to date have assessed the feasibility and acceptability of group ANC in India.

METHODS

We adapted a "generic" model of group antenatal care developed through a systematic scoping review of the existing evidence on group ANC in LMICs for use in an urban setting in India, after looking at local, national and global guidelines to tailor the model content. We demonstrated one session of the model to physicians, auxiliary nurse midwives, administrators, pregnant women, and support persons from three different types of health facilities in Vadodara, India and used qualitative methods to gather and analyze feedback from participants on the perceived feasibility and acceptability of the model.

RESULTS

Providers and recipients of care expressed support and enthusiasm for the model and offered specific feedback on its components: physical assessment, active learning, and social support. In general, after witnessing a demonstration of the model, both groups of participants-providers and beneficiaries-saw group ANC as a vehicle for delivering more comprehensive ANC services, improving experiences of care, empowering women to become more active partners and participants in their care, and potentially addressing some current health system challenges.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that introducing group ANC would be feasible and acceptable to stakeholders from various care delivery settings, including an urban primary health clinic, a community-based mother and child health center, and a private hospital, in urban India.

Group antenatal care models in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic evidence synthesis

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.

Association of Group Prenatal Care With Gestational Weight Gain

OBJECTIVE

To compare gestational weight gain among women in group prenatal care with that of women in individual prenatal care.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, women who participated in group prenatal care from 2009 to 2015 and whose body mass indexes (BMIs) and gestational weight gain were recorded were matched with the next two women who had the same payer type, were within 2-kg/m prepregnancy BMI and 2-week gestational age at delivery, and had received individual prenatal care. Bivariate comparisons of demographics and antenatal complications were performed for women in group and individual prenatal care, and weight gain was categorized as "below," "met," or "exceeded" goals according to the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines. Logistic regression analysis estimated the association between excessive weight gain and model of care, with adjustment for confounders, stratified by BMI.

RESULTS

Women in group prenatal care (n=2,117) were younger and more commonly non-Hispanic black, nulliparous, and without gestational diabetes (P≤.005 for all). Women in group prenatal care more commonly exceeded the weight gain goals (55% compared with 48%, P<.001). The differences in gestational weight gain were concentrated among normal-weight (mean 34.2 compared with 32.1 pounds, P<.001; 47% compared with 41% exceeded, P=.008) and overweight women (mean 31.5 compared with 27.1 pounds, P<.001; 69% compared with 54% exceeded, P<.001). When adjusted for age, race-ethnicity, parity, education, and tobacco use, the increased odds for excessive gestational weight gain persisted among normal-weight (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.51) and overweight (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.50-2.27) women. Nulliparity was associated with increased excessive gestational weight gain (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.33-1.68), whereas Hispanic ethnicity was associated with decreased excessive gestational weight gain (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59-0.78).

CONCLUSION

Among normal-weight or overweight women, group prenatal care, compared with individual prenatal care, is associated with excessive gestational weight gain.

Group prenatal care

Patients participating in group prenatal care gather together with women of similar gestational ages and 2 providers who cofacilitate an educational session after a brief medical assessment. The model was first described in the 1990s by a midwife for low-risk patients and is now practiced by midwives and physicians for both low-risk patients and some high-risk patients, such as those with diabetes. The majority of literature on group prenatal care uses CenteringPregnancy, the most popular model. The first randomized controlled trial of CenteringPregnancy showed that it reduced the risk of preterm birth in low-risk women. However, recent meta-analyses have shown similar rates of preterm birth, low birthweight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission between women participating in group prenatal care and individual prenatal care. There may be subgroups, such as African Americans, who benefit from this type of prenatal care with significantly lower rates of preterm birth. Group prenatal care seems to result in increased patient satisfaction and knowledge and use of postpartum family planning as well as improved weight gain parameters. The literature is inconclusive regarding breast-feeding, stress, depression, and positive health behaviors, although it is theorized that group prenatal care positively affects these outcomes. It is unclear whether group prenatal care results in cost savings, although it may in large-volume practices if each group consists of approximately 8-10 women. Group prenatal care requires a significant paradigm shift. It can be difficult to implement and sustain. More randomized trials are needed to ascertain the true benefits of the model, best practices for implementation, and subgroups who may benefit most from this innovative way to provide prenatal care. In short, group prenatal care is an innovative and promising model with comparable pregnancy outcomes to individual prenatal care in the general population and improved outcomes in some demographic groups.

Centering and Racial Disparities (CRADLE study): rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial of centeringpregnancy and birth outcomes

Background

In the United States, preterm birth (PTB) before 37 weeks gestational age occurs at an unacceptably high rate, and large racial disparities persist. To date, medical and public health interventions have achieved limited success in reducing rates of PTB. Innovative changes in healthcare delivery are needed to improve pregnancy outcomes. One such model is CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care (GPNC), in which individual physical assessments are combined with facilitated group education and social support. Most existing studies in the literature on GPNC are observational. Although the results are promising, they are not powered to detect differences in PTB, do not address the racial disparity in PTB, and do not include measures of hypothesized mediators that are theoretically based and validated. The aims of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) are to compare birth outcomes as well as maternal behavioral and psychosocial outcomes by race among pregnant women who participate in GPNC to their counterparts in individual prenatal care (IPNC) and to investigate whether improving women’s behavioral and psychosocial outcomes will explain the potential benefits of GPNC on birth outcomes and racial disparities.

Methods/design

This is a single site RCT study at Greenville Health System in South Carolina. Women are eligible if they are between 14–45 years old and enter prenatal care before 20 6/7 weeks of gestational age. Eligible, consenting women will be randomized 1:1 into GPNC group or IPNC group, stratified by race. Women allocated to GPNC will attend 2-h group prenatal care sessions according to the standard curriculum provided by the Centering Healthcare Institute, with other women due to deliver in the same month. Women allocated to IPNC will attend standard, traditional individual prenatal care according to standard clinical guidelines. Patients in both groups will be followed up until 12 weeks postpartum.

Discussion

Findings from this project will provide rigorous scientific evidence on the role of GPNC in reducing the rate of PTB, and specifically in reducing racial disparities in PTB. Establishing the improved effect of GPNC on pregnancy and birth outcomes can change the way healthcare is delivered, particularly with populations with higher rates of PTB.

Trial registration

NCT02640638 Date Registered: 12/20/2015.

Glycemic control, compliance, and satisfaction for diabetic gravidas in centering group care

PURPOSE

To determine if diabetic gravidas enrolled in Centering® group care have improved glycemic control compared to those attending standard prenatal care. To compare compliance and patient satisfaction between the groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of diabetics enrolled in centering group care from October 2013 to December 2015. Glycemic control, compliance and patient satisfaction (five-point Likert scale) were evaluated. Student's t-test, Chi-Square and mixed effects model were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

We compared 20 patients in centering to 28 standard prenatal care controls. Mean fasting blood sugar was lower with centering group care (91.0 versus 105.5 mg/dL, p =0.017). There was no difference in change in fasting blood sugar over time between the two groups (p = 0.458). The percentage of time patients brought their blood glucose logs did not differ between the centering group and standard prenatal care (70.7 versus 73.9%, p = 0.973). Women in centering group care had better patient satisfaction scores for "ability to be seen by a physician" (5 versus 4, p = 0.041) and "time in waiting room" (5 versus 4, p =0.001).

CONCLUSION

Fasting blood sugar was lower for patients in centering group care. Change in blood sugar over time did not differ between groups. Diabetic gravidas enrolled in centering group care report improved patient satisfaction.

The comparative effects of group prenatal care on psychosocial outcomes

To compare the psychosocial outcomes of the CenteringPregnancy (CP) model of group prenatal care to individual prenatal care, we conducted a prospective cohort study of women who chose CP group (N = 124) or individual prenatal care (N = 124). Study participants completed the first survey at study recruitment (mean gestational age 12.5 weeks), with 89% completing the second survey (mean gestational age 32.7 weeks) and 84% completing the third survey (6 weeks' postpartum). Multiple linear regression models compared changes by prenatal care model in pregnancy-specific distress, prenatal planning-preparation and avoidance coping, perceived stress, affect and depressive symptoms, pregnancy-related empowerment, and postpartum maternal-infant attachment and maternal functioning. Using intention-to-treat models, group prenatal care participants demonstrated a 3.2 point greater increase (p < 0.05) in their use of prenatal planning-preparation coping strategies. While group participants did not demonstrate significantly greater positive outcomes in other measures, women who were at greater psychosocial risk benefitted from participation in group prenatal care. Among women reporting inadequate social support in early pregnancy, group participants demonstrated a 2.9 point greater decrease (p = 0.03) in pregnancy-specific distress in late pregnancy and 5.6 point higher mean maternal functioning scores postpartum (p = 0.03). Among women with high pregnancy-specific distress in early pregnancy, group participants had an 8.3 point greater increase (p < 0.01) in prenatal planning-preparation coping strategies in late pregnancy and a 4.9 point greater decrease (p = 0.02) in postpartum depressive symptom scores. This study provides further evidence that group prenatal care positively impacts the psychosocial well-being of women with greater stress or lower personal coping resources. Large randomized studies are needed to establish conclusively the biological and psychosocial benefits of group prenatal care for all women.

Feasibility and Initial Efficacy Evaluation of a Community-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Lifestyle Intervention to Prevent Excessive Weight Gain During Pregnancy in Latina Women

About 48 % of US women gain more weight during pregnancy than recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Excessive gestational weight gain is a major risk factor for obesity in both women and offspring over their lifetimes, and should be avoided. This study was designed to test the feasibility and initial efficacy of a prenatal behavioral intervention in a sample of low-income, predominantly Latina women. The intervention was delivered in groups of 8–10 women in a community recreation center, and structured to reduce the proportion of women who gained weight in excess of IOM guidelines. Recruitment targets were met in 3 months: 135 pregnant women (>10 and <28 weeks) were randomly assigned to receive a 12-week intervention (n = 68) or usual care (n = 67). Retention rate was 81 %. On average, women attended 4 of 12 group sessions, and each session had 4 of the 8–10 assigned participants in attendance. Initial efficacy analyses were based on 87 women. Compared to usual care, fewer normal-weight women in the intervention exceeded IOM recommendations (47.1 % usual care vs. 6.7 % intervention; absolute difference 40.4 %; p = .036). Recommendations for recruitment, retention, and delivery are discussed. A community-based cognitive-behavioral lifestyle intervention during pregnancy was feasible in a hard-to-reach, high-risk population of low-income Latina women, and showed efficacy in preventing excessive gestational weight gain. Due to frequently changing work schedules, strategies are needed to either increase attendance at group sessions (e.g., within a group prenatal care format) or to build core skills necessary for behavior change through other modalities.

Group prenatal care: has its time come?

Group prenatal care is an emerging trend in obstetrics, and for medically low-risk women has been shown to result in lower rates of preterm birth, higher rates of breastfeeding, and higher rates of participation in postpartum family planning. Significant cost savings to the health care system are seen when the lower rates of preterm birth and neonatal intensive care unit admissions are considered. More research is needed about patients' health outcomes as well as the economic and workforce implications to outpatient obstetric practices before widely transitioning prenatal care into group settings.

Group prenatal care for women with gestational diabetes (.)

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine if group prenatal care affects the progression to A2 gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) when compared with conventional care for women with GDM.

METHODS

Prospective observational cohort of women diagnosed with GDM who attended group visits compared with a historical control group of women who received conventional obstetrical care in the year prior but would have met inclusion criteria for group care. The primary outcome was progression to A2 GDM. Secondary outcomes included antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum maternal outcomes and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 165 subjects were included: 62 in group care and 103 in conventional care. Compared with patients with conventional care, group subjects were more likely to attend a postpartum visit (92% versus 66%; p = 0.002) and were almost 4 times more likely to receive recommended diabetes screening postpartum (OR 3.9, CI 1.8-8.6). Group subjects were much less likely to progress to A2 GDM (OR 0.15, CI 0.07-0.30). There were no differences in neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Group prenatal care for women with diabetes is associated with decreased progression to A2 GDM and improved postpartum follow-up for appropriate diabetes screening without significantly affecting obstetrical or neonatal outcomes.

Assessing the Impact of De Novo Social Ties within Health Intervention Settings: New Questions for Health Behavior Intervention Research

Recent developments in the study of health and social networks have focused on linkages between health outcomes and naturally occurring social relations, such as friendship or kinship. Based on findings in this area, a new generation of health behavior intervention programs have been implemented that rely on the formation of new social relations among program participants. However, little is known about the qualities of these de novo social relations. We examined the social networks of 59 participants within a randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to prevent excessive gestational weight gain. We employed exponential random graph modeling techniques to analyze supportive relationships formed between participants in the intervention arm, to detect unique effects of program participation on the likelihood of forming ties. Program participation had a positive effect on the likelihood of forming supportive social relations, however, in this particular timeframe we did not detect any additional effect of such relations on the health behaviors or outcomes of interest. Our findings raise two critical questions: do short-term group-level programs reliably lead to the formation of new social relations among participants; and do these relations have a unique effect on health outcomes relative to standard methods of health behavior intervention?

Excess Gestational Weight Gain in Low-Income Overweight and Obese Women: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Examine factors implicated in gestational weight gain (GWG) in low-income overweight and obese women.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING

Community-based perinatal center.

PARTICIPANTS

Eight focus groups with women (black = 48%, white non-Hispanic = 41%, and Hispanic = 10%) in the first half (n = 12) and last half of pregnancy (n = 10) or postpartum (n = 7), 2 with obstetrician-gynecologists (n = 9).

PHENOMENON OF INTEREST

Barriers and facilitators to healthy eating and GWG within different levels of the Social Ecological Model: for example, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational.

ANALYSIS

Coding guide was based on the Social Ecological Model. Transcripts were coded by 3 researchers for common themes. Thematic saturation was reached.

RESULTS

At an intrapersonal level, knowledge/skills and cravings were the most common barriers. At an interpersonal level, family and friends were most influential. At an organizational level, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and clinics were influential. At the community level, lack of transportation was most frequently discussed. At a policy level, complex policies and social stigma surrounding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children were barriers. There was consensus that ideal intervention approaches would include peer-facilitated support groups with information from experts. Obstetrician-gynecologists felt uncomfortable counseling patients about GWG because of time constraints, other priorities, and lack of training.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

There are multilevel public health opportunities to promote healthy GWG. Better communication between nutrition specialists and obstetrician-gynecologists is needed.

Weight gain in healthy pregnant women in relation to pre-pregnancy BMI, diet and physical activity

OBJECTIVE

to explore gestational weight gain in healthy women in relation to pre-pregnancy Body Mass Index, diet and physical activity.

DESIGN

a cross-sectional survey was conducted among 455 healthy pregnant women of all gestational ages receiving antenatal care from an independent midwife in the Netherlands. Weight gain was assessed using the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines and classified as below, within, or above the guidelines. A multinomial regression analysis was performed with weight gain classifications as the dependent variable (within IOM-guidelines as reference). Independent variables were pre-pregnancy Body Mass Index, diet (broken down into consumption of vegetables, fruit and fish) and physical activity (motivation to engage in physical activity, pre-pregnancy physical activity and decline in physical activity during pregnancy). Covariates were age, gestational age, parity, ethnicity, family income, education, perceived sleep deprivation, satisfaction with pre-pregnancy weight, estimated prepregnancy body mass index, smoking, having a weight gain goal and having received weight gain advice from the midwife.

FINDINGS

forty-two per cent of the women surveyed gained weight within the guidelines. Fourteen per cent of the women gained weight below the guidelines and 44 per cent gained weight above the guidelines. Weight gain within the guidelines, compared to both above and below the guidelines, was not associated with pre-pregnancy Body Mass Index nor with diet. A decline in physical activity was associated with weight gain above the guidelines (OR 0.54, 95 per cent CI 0.33-0.89). Weight gain below the guidelines was seen more often in women who perceived a greater sleep deprivation (OR 1.20, 95 per cent CI 1.02-1.41). Weight gain above the guidelines was seen less often in Caucasian women in comparison to non-Caucasian women (OR 0.22, 95 per cent CI 0.08-0.56) and with women who did not stop smoking during pregnancy (OR 0.49, 95 per cent CI 0.25-0.95).

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

a decline in physical activity was the only modifiable factor in our population associated with weight gain above the gain recommended by the guidelines. Prevention of reduced physical activity during pregnancy seems a promising approach to promoting healthy weight gain. Interventions to promote healthy weight gain should focus on all women, regardless of pre-pregnancy body mass index.

Efficacy of a group-based dietary intervention for limiting gestational weight gain among obese women: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Observational studies suggest that minimal gestational weight gain (GWG) may optimize pregnancy outcomes for obese women. This trial tested the efficacy of a group-based weight management intervention for limiting GWG among obese women.

METHODS

One hundred and fourteen obese women (BMI [mean ± SD] 36.7 ± 4.9 kg/m(2) ) were randomized between 7 and 21 weeks' (14.9 ± 2.6) gestation to intervention (n = 56) or usual care control conditions (n = 58). The intervention included individualized calorie goals, advice to maintain weight within 3% of randomization and follow the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension dietary pattern without sodium restriction, and attendance at weekly group meetings until delivery. Control participants received one-time dietary advice. Our three main outcomes were maternal weight change from randomization to 2 weeks postpartum and from randomization to 34 weeks gestation, and newborn large-for-gestational age (birth weight >90th percentile, LGA).

RESULTS

Intervention participants gained less weight from randomization to 34 weeks gestation (5.0 vs. 8.4 kg, mean difference = -3.4 kg, 95% CI [-5.1-1.8]), and from randomization to 2 weeks postpartum (-2.6 vs. +1.2 kg, mean difference = -3.8 kg, 95% CI [-5.9-1.7]). They also had a lower proportion of LGA babies (9 vs. 26%, odds ratio = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09-0.84]).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention resulted in lower GWG and lower prevalence of LGA newborns.