The views and anticipated needs of women in early pregnancy

A Review of Prenatal Care Delivery to Inform the Michigan Plan for Appropriate Tailored Health Care in Pregnancy Panel

OBJECTIVE

To perform a literature review of key aspects of prenatal care delivery to inform new guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive review of Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier's Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We included studies addressing components of prenatal care delivery (visit frequency, routine pregnancy assessments, and telemedicine) that assessed maternal and neonatal health outcomes, patient experience, or care utilization in pregnant individuals with and without medical conditions. Quality was assessed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology approach. Articles were independently reviewed by at least two members of the study team for inclusion and data abstraction.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Of the 4,105 published abstracts identified, 53 studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 140,150 participants. There were no differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes among patients without medical conditions with reduced visit frequency schedules. For patients at risk of preterm birth, increased visit frequency with enhanced prenatal services was inconsistently associated with improved outcomes. Home monitoring of blood pressure and weight was feasible, but home monitoring of fetal heart tones and fundal height were not assessed. More frequent weight measurement did not lower rates of excessive weight gain. Home monitoring of blood pressure for individuals with medical conditions was feasible, accurate, and associated with lower clinic utilization. There were no differences in health outcomes for patients without medical conditions who received telemedicine visits for routine prenatal care, and patients had decreased care utilization. Telemedicine was a successful strategy for consultations among individuals with medical conditions; resulted in improved outcomes for patients with depression, diabetes, and hypertension; and had inconsistent results for patients with obesity and those at risk of preterm birth.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence for many components of prenatal care delivery, including visit frequency, routine pregnancy assessments, and telemedicine, is limited.

Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy

BACKGROUND

The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 March 2015), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, versus standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We assessed studies for risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). Most of the data included in the review came from the three large, well-designed cluster-randomised trials that took place in Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Zimbabwe. All results have been adjusted for the cluster design effect. All of the trials were at some risk of bias as blinding of women and staff was not feasible with this type of intervention. For primary outcomes, evidence was graded as being of moderate or low quality, with downgrading decisions due to risks of bias and imprecision of effects.The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal-oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31; five trials, 56,431 babies; moderate-quality evidence). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80, two trials); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32, three trials).There was no clear difference between groups for our other primary outcomes: maternal death (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.50 to 2.57, three cluster-randomised trials, 51,504 women, low-quality evidence); hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (various definitions including pre-eclampsia) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, six studies, 54,108 women, low-quality evidence); preterm birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; seven studies, 53,661 women, moderate-quality evidence); and small-for-gestational age (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, four studies 43,045 babies, moderate-quality evidence).Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02, five studies, 43,048 babies, moderate quality evidence). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other secondary clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.

Validation of the multidimensional health locus of control scales for labor and delivery

No current instrument assesses women's health locus of control beliefs in relation to childbirth. Form C of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales was used to develop items for a new instrument specific to labor and delivery (MHLC-LD). Psychometric analyses conducted with two independent samples of pregnant women supported a three-factor model of the new instrument, consisting of Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance subscales. Results revealed modest coefficient alphas (>.70) for the subscales and demonstrated construct validity in known group analyses. Future validation research will focus on improving the internal consistency reliability of the MHLC-LD, testing factorial invariance across demographic groups, and examining the relationships between obstetric risk, previous birth experiences, and beliefs about control over childbirth outcomes.

Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy

BACKGROUND

The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, with standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (five trials; risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (2 trials; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (3 trials RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32). Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other reported clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.

Relative professional roles in antenatal care: results of a survey in Scottish rural general practice

There is evidence of variation and some ambiguity about self-perceived relative professional roles in antenatal care in the UK. There is little information about models of antenatal care provision in UK rural areas. In rural areas, in particular, women have limited choice in accessing health care professionals or alternative primary care delivery settings. In the light of a recent review of Scottish maternity services, it is important and timely to examine models of care and interprofessional working in antenatal care in rural areas. This study explores midwives' and GPs' perceptions about their relative professional roles in remote and rural general practice in Scotland. A questionnaire survey involving all 174 Scottish remote and rural general practices (using one definition of rurality) was conducted, followed by 20 interviews. At least one professional returned a completed questionnaire from 91% of rural practices. A number of areas of dissonance were noted between GPs' and midwives' perceptions of their roles in maternity care and, given the context of service provision, these may impact upon rural patients. Findings are relevant to wider debates on extending the primary care team and strengthening inter-disciplinary working, particularly in rural areas.

Importance of patient pressure and perceived pressure and perceived medical need for investigations, referral, and prescribing in primary care: nested observational study

OBJECTIVE

To assess how pressures from patients on doctors in the consultation contribute to referral and investigation.

DESIGN

Observational study nested within a randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Five general practices in three settings in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

847 consecutive patients, aged 16-80 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Patient preferences and doctors' perception of patient pressure and medical need.

RESULTS

Perceived medical need was the strongest independent predictor of all behaviours and confounded all other predictors. The doctors thought, however, there was no or only a slight indication for medical need among a significant minority of those who were examined (89/580, 15%), received a prescription (74/394, 19%), or were referred (27/125, 22%) and almost half of those investigated (99/216, 46%). After controlling for patient preference, medical need, and clustering by doctor, doctors' perceptions of patient pressure were strongly associated with prescribing (adjusted odds ratio 2.87, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 7.08) and even more strongly associated with examination (4.38, 1.24 to 15.5), referral (10.72, 2.08 to 55.3), and investigation (3.18, 1.31 to 7.70). In all cases, doctors' perception of patient pressure was a stronger predictor than patients' preferences. Controlling for randomisation group, mean consultation time, or patient variables did not alter estimates or inferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors' behaviour in the consultation is most strongly associated with perceived medical need of the patient, which strongly confounds other predictors. However, a significant minority of examining, prescribing, and referral, and almost half of investigations, are still thought by the doctor to be slightly needed or not needed at all, and perceived patient pressure is a strong independent predictor of all doctor behaviours. To limit unnecessary resource use and iatrogenesis, when management decisions are not thought to be medically needed, doctors need to directly ask patients about their expectations.

Patterns of routine antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that reduced antenatal care packages or prenatal care managed by providers other than obstetricians for low risk women can be as effective as standard models of antenatal care.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antenatal care programmes for low-risk women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, reference lists of articles and we also contacted researchers in the field. Date of last search: April 1999.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing programmes of antenatal care with varied frequency and timing of the visits and different types of care providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for additional information and they were provided with the final version of the review.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials involving over 25000 women were included. Six trials evaluated the number of visits and three trials evaluated the type of care provider. Most trials were of acceptable quality. Moderate reduction in the number of visits was not associated with an increase in any of the negative perinatal outcomes reviewed. However, trials from developed countries suggest that women can be less satisfied with the reduced number of visits and feel that their expectations with care are not fulfilled. Antenatal care provided by a midwife/general practitioner was associated with improved perception of care by women. Clinical effectiveness of midwife/general practitioner managed care was similar to that of obstetrician/gynaecologist led shared care.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

It appears that a moderate reduction in the number of antenatal care visits with an increased emphasis on the content of the visits could be implemented without any increase in adverse biological perinatal outcomes. Women can be less satisfied with reduced visits. While clinical effectiveness seemed similar, women appeared to be slightly more satisfied with midwife/general practitioner managed care compared to obstetrician/gynaecologist led shared care.