The future of prenatal HIV testing

How effective is antenatal care in preventing maternal mortality and serious morbidity? An overview of the evidence

This is an overview of evidence of the effectiveness of antenatal care in relation to maternal mortality and serious morbidity, focused in particular on developing countries. It concentrates on the major causes of maternal mortality, and traces their antecedent morbidities and risk factors in pregnancy. It also includes interventions aimed at preventing, detecting or treating any stage along this pathway during pregnancy. This is an updated and expanded version of a review first published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1992. The scientific evidence from randomised controlled trials and other types of intervention or observational study on the effectiveness of these interventions is reviewed critically. The sources and quality of available data, and possible biases in their collection or interpretation are considered. As in other areas of maternal health, good-quality evidence is scarce and, just as in many aspects of health care generally, there are interventions in current practice that have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. A table of antenatal interventions of proven effectiveness in conditions that can lead to maternal mortality or serious morbidity is presented. Interventions for which there is some promising evidence, short of proof, of effectiveness are explored, and the outstanding questions formulated. These are presented in a series of tables with suggestions about the types of study needed to answer them.

Risk assessment

Risk assessment is the process by which clinicians screen for conditions that, if unmanaged, result in complications of pregnancy or adverse birth outcomes and for which an intervention would improve the well-being of the mother, child, and family. One of the major US health care goals is that by the year 2000, at least 90% of pregnant women will receive risk appropriate care. This article discusses the major risks to the mother and child during pregnancy, and presents tools to assess pregnancy well-being.

Human immunodeficiency virus screening among pregnant women in France: results from the 1995 National Perinatal Survey

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess how the French legislation requiring physicians to offer human immunodeficiency virus screening routinely at the beginning of prenatal care has been implemented and to explore areas in which improvement is required.

STUDY DESIGN

The survey included all births in France during a 7-day period in February 1995. A total of 12,341 women were asked whether they knew whether they had undergone a human immunodeficiency virus antibody test before or during the pregnancy. Factors that could have influenced their knowledge of whether they had been tested were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the women questioned, 87.3% stated that they had been tested before or during pregnancy, 7.6% said that they had not been tested, and 5.1% stated that they did not know whether a test had been performed. Among those who said that they had not been tested before the pregnancy in question, 84. 9% reported that they were tested during the pregnancy. The multivariate analysis revealed that women from North Africa differed significantly from French women in both unawareness of screening status and the proportion who reported not being screened (odds ratio 2.1 with 95% confidence interval 1.6-2.9 and odds ratio 2.4 with 95% confidence interval 1.8-3.1, respectively). There was, however, no significant difference between women from sub-Saharan Africa and French women in these variables. A lower educational level was an important predictor of unawareness of screening status (odds ratio 2.6 with 95% confidence interval 2.0-3.4). Associations were observed between reporting of unscreened status and low levels of use of prenatal care services (<6 prenatal consultations odds ratio 1.3 with 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.6, <3 ultrasonographic examinations odds ratio 1.7 with 95% confidence interval 1.3-2.0, and no prenatal consultation at the maternity hospital odds ratio 1. 5 with 95% confidence interval 1.2-1.8).

CONCLUSION

The 1995 National Perinatal Survey, which appears to indicate extensive human immunodeficiency virus screening of pregnant women in France, shows that the nonmandatory nature of the French policy of systematically offering prenatal human immunodeficiency virus screening has not prevented a high proportion of women from learning their screening status. The less comprehensive screening among women in certain subgroups suggests that human immunodeficiency virus information should be better adapted for these women.