Comparison of centering pregnancy to traditional care in Hispanic mothers

Enhancing Prenatal Group Medical Visits with Mindfulness Skills: A Pragmatic Trial with Latina and BIPOC Pregnant Women Experiencing Multiple Forms of Structural Inequity

Objectives

Prenatal mindfulness programs can improve mental health, yet access to and cultural and linguistic relevance of existing programs in the United States are limited for people who do not speak English and/or face major life stressors such as migration, housing instability, limited income, and racism. In response, mindfulness skills training drawn from Mindfulness-Based Childbirth and Parenting (MBCP) was integrated into Medicaid-covered CenteringPregnancy (CP) group prenatal healthcare, delivered in Spanish and English by certified nurse-midwives and community co-leaders, and tested in a pragmatic pilot trial.

Method

A provider survey of 17 CP clinics informed development of the enhanced program. Next, it was tested with 49 pregnant people who chose CP prenatal care. All of the sample identified as women; 4% as LGBTQ +; 90% as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (65% as Latina/e/x); 10% as White; and 63% as Spanish-speaking. Groups were allocated 1:1 to CenteringPregnancy or CenteringPregnancy with Mindfulness Skills (CP +).

Results

Intent-to-treat analysis of self-report interview data indicated CP + yielded lower postpartum depression (the a priori primary study outcome) with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.80) and a trend toward lower postpartum anxiety (Cohen's d = 0.59) compared to CP. Hypothesized effects on mindfulness, positive/negative affect, and perceived stress were only partially supported at post-birth follow-up. Satisfaction with care was high across conditions.

Conclusions

Augmenting group prenatal healthcare with mindfulness training in Spanish and English appears feasible, did not reduce satisfaction with care, and may have additional mental health benefits. Key questions remain about structural supports for perinatal well-being.

What are the mechanisms of effect of group antenatal care? A systematic realist review and synthesis of the literature

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in the benefits of group models of antenatal care. Although clinical reviews exist, there have been few reviews that focus on the mechanisms of effect of this model.

METHODS

We conducted a realist review using a systematic approach incorporating all data types (including non-research and audiovisual media), with synthesis along Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome (CIMO) configurations.

RESULTS

A wide range of sources were identified, yielding 100 relevant sources in total (89 written and 11 audiovisual). Overall, there was no clear pattern of 'what works for whom, in what circumstances' although some studies have identified clinical benefits for those with more vulnerability or who are typically underserved by standard care. Findings revealed six interlinking mechanisms, including: social support, peer learning, active participation in health, health education and satisfaction or engagement with care. A further, relatively under-developed theory related to impact on professional practice. An overarching mechanism of empowerment featured across most studies but there was variation in how this was collectively or individually conceptualised and applied.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanisms of effect are amplified in contexts where inequalities in access and delivery of care exist, but poor reporting of populations and contexts limited fuller exploration. We recommend future studies provide detailed descriptions of the population groups involved and that they give full consideration to theoretical underpinnings and contextual factors.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this realist review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42016036768).

Comparing Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Breastfeeding Practice and Motivational Factors

OBJECTIVE

Although breastfeeding in the first 6 months postpartum benefits both infants and mothers, breastfeeding rates remain low. This study examined whether group prenatal care was associated with an increased breastfeeding initiation and duration compared with those receiving usual, individual prenatal care. A secondary aim was to investigate whether sociodemographic and motivational factors were associated with breastfeeding initiation and duration across prenatal care groups.

METHODS

Pregnant women in their third trimester ( n = 211) from an innercity university medical center participated. Prenatal care type was identified from the medical chart, and data on breastfeeding duration at 1, 3, and 6 months postpartum were collected. Breastfeeding motivational factors were assessed with a survey. Logistic regressions and independent-samples t tests were used for data analyses.

RESULTS

After controlling for demographic factors, group prenatal care was associated with increased breastfeeding at 6 months postpartum (odds ratio = 2.66; P = .045) compared with individual care. Breastfeeding intention ( P < .001), competence ( P = .003), and autonomous motivation ( P < .001) were significantly higher, while amotivation ( P = .034) was significantly lower in group compared with individual prenatal care.

CONCLUSIONS

Breastfeeding persistence was higher among women receiving group prenatal care, potentially due to motivational factors. Future studies should investigate how breastfeeding motivational factors could be effectively targeted in prenatal care to increase breastfeeding persistence.

FIGO good practice recommendations on optimizing models of care for the prevention and mitigation of preterm birth

The global challenge of preterm birth persists with little or no progress being made to reduce its prevalence or mitigate its consequences, especially in low-resource settings where health systems are less well developed. Improved delivery of respectful person-centered care employing effective care models delivered by skilled healthcare professionals is essential for addressing these needs. These FIGO good practice recommendations provide an overview of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of the various care models for preventing and managing preterm birth across global contexts. We also highlight that continuity of care within existing, context-appropriate care models (such as midwifery-led care and group care), in primary as well as secondary care, is pivotal to delivering high quality care across the pregnancy continuum-prior to conception, through pregnancy and birth, and preparation for a subsequent pregnancy-to improve care to prevent and manage preterm birth.

Group Multimodal Prenatal Care and Postpartum Outcomes

Importance

An increasing body of evidence suggests equivalent if not improved postpartum outcomes of in-person group prenatal care compared with individual prenatal care. However, research is needed to evaluate outcomes of group multimodal prenatal care (GMPC), with groups delivered virtually in combination with individual in-person office appointments to collect vital signs and conduct other tests compared with individual multimodal prenatal care (IMPC) delivered through a combination of remotely delivered and in-person visits.

Objective

To compare postpartum outcomes between GMPC and IMPC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A frequency-matched longitudinal cohort study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated health care delivery system. Participants included 424 individuals who were pregnant (212 GMPC and 212 frequency-matched IMPC controls (matched on gestational age, race and ethnicity, insurance status, and maternal age) receiving prenatal care between August 17, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Participants completed a baseline survey before 14 weeks' gestation and a follow-up survey between 4 and 8 weeks post partum. Data analysis was performed from January 3, 2022, to March 4, 2024.

Exposure

GMPC vs IMPC.

Main Outcome Measures

Validated instruments were used to ascertain postpartum psychosocial outcomes (stress, depression, anxiety) and perceived quality of prenatal care. Self-reported outcomes included behavioral outcomes (breastfeeding initiation, use of long-acting reversible contraception), satisfaction with prenatal care, and preparation for self and baby care after delivery. Primary analyses included all study participants in the final cohort. Three secondary dose-stratified analyses included individuals who attended at least 1 visit, 5 visits, and 70% of visits. Log-binomial regression and linear regression analyses were conducted.

Results

The final analytic cohort of 390 participants (95.6% follow-up rate of 408 singleton live births) was racially and ethnically diverse: 98 (25.1%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 88 (22.6%) Hispanic, 17 (4.4%) non-Hispanic Black, 161 (41.3%) non-Hispanic White, and 26 (6.7%) multiracial participants; median age was 32 (IQR, 30-35) years. In the primary analysis, after adjustment, GMPC was associated with a 21% decreased risk of perceived stress (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.94) compared with IMPC. Findings were consistent in the dose-stratified analyses. There were no significant differences between GMPC and IMPC for other psychosocial outcomes. While in the primary analyses there was no significant group differences in perceived quality of prenatal care (mean difference [MD], 0.01; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.15) and feeling prepared to take care of baby at home (ARR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23), the dose-stratified analyses documented higher perceived quality of prenatal care (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01-0.31) and preparation for taking care of baby at home (ARR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.13-1.43) for GMPC among those attending 70% of visits. No significant differences were noted in patient overall satisfaction with prenatal care and feeling prepared for taking care of themselves after delivery.

Conclusions

In this cohort study, equivalent and, in some cases, better outcomes were observed for GMPC compared with IMPC. Health care systems implementing multimodal models of care may consider incorporating virtual group prenatal care as a prenatal care option for patients.

Maternal satisfaction with group care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This review examined the quantitative relationship between group care and overall maternal satisfaction compared with standard individual care.

DATA SOURCES

We searched CINAHL, Clinical Trials, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from the beginning of 2003 through June 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that reported the association between overall maternal satisfaction and centering-based perinatal care where the control group was standard individual care. We included randomized and observational designs.

METHODS

Screening and independent data extraction were carried out by 4 researchers. We extracted data on study characteristics, population, design, intervention characteristics, satisfaction measurement, and outcome. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane tools for Clinical Trials (RoB2) and observational studies (ROBINS-I). We summarized the study, intervention, and satisfaction measurement characteristics. We presented the effect estimates of each study descriptively using a forest plot without performing an overall meta-analysis. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of variations in study designs and methods used to measure satisfaction. We presented studies reporting mean values and odds ratios in 2 separate plots. The presentation of studies in forest plots was organized by type of study design.

RESULTS

A total of 7685 women participated in the studies included in the review. We found that most studies (ie, 17/20) report higher satisfaction with group care than standard individual care. Some of the noted results are lower satisfaction with group care in both studies in Sweden and 1 of the 2 studies from Canada. Higher satisfaction was present in 14 of 15 studies reporting CenteringPregnancy, Group Antenatal Care (1 study), and Adapted CenteringPregnancy (1 study). Although indicative of higher maternal satisfaction, the results are often based on statistically insignificant effect estimates with wide confidence intervals derived from small sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

The evidence confirms higher maternal satisfaction with group care than with standard care. This likely reflects group care methodology, which combines clinical assessment, facilitated health promotion discussion, and community-building opportunities. This evidence will be helpful for the implementation of group care globally.

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.

Targeted health and social care interventions for women and infants who are disproportionately impacted by health inequalities in high-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Disadvantaged populations (such as women from minority ethnic groups and those with social complexity) are at an increased risk of poor outcomes and experiences. Inequalities in health outcomes include preterm birth, maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, and poor-quality care. The impact of interventions is unclear for this population, in high-income countries (HIC). The review aimed to identify and evaluate the current evidence related to targeted health and social care service interventions in HICs which can improve health inequalities experienced by childbearing women and infants at disproportionate risk of poor outcomes and experiences.

METHODS

Twelve databases searched for studies across all HICs, from any methodological design. The search concluded on 8/11/22. The inclusion criteria included interventions that targeted disadvantaged populations which provided a component of clinical care that differed from standard maternity care.

RESULTS

Forty six index studies were included. Countries included Australia, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, UK and USA. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and results showed three intervention types: midwifery models of care, interdisciplinary care, and community-centred services. These intervention types have been delivered singularly but also in combination of each other demonstrating overlapping features. Overall, results show interventions had positive associations with primary (maternal, perinatal, and infant mortality) and secondary outcomes (experiences and satisfaction, antenatal care coverage, access to care, quality of care, mode of delivery, analgesia use in labour, preterm birth, low birth weight, breastfeeding, family planning, immunisations) however significance and impact vary. Midwifery models of care took an interpersonal and holistic approach as they focused on continuity of carer, home visiting, culturally and linguistically appropriate care and accessibility. Interdisciplinary care took a structural approach, to coordinate care for women requiring multi-agency health and social services. Community-centred services took a place-based approach with interventions that suited the need of its community and their norms.

CONCLUSION

Targeted interventions exist in HICs, but these vary according to the context and infrastructure of standard maternity care. Multi-interventional approaches could enhance a targeted approach for at risk populations, in particular combining midwifery models of care with community-centred approaches, to enhance accessibility, earlier engagement, and increased attendance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020218357.

Impact of Group vs. Individual Prenatal Care Provision on Women’s Knowledge of Pregnancy-Related Topics: An Open, Controlled, Semi-Randomized Community Trial

The importance of acquiring knowledge of pregnant women on prenatal care lies in its leading to confidence and ability in decision-making. There is a growing need for a model of prenatal care that will allow nurses to provide the most efficient pregnancy-related guidance with minimum need for additional staff. This study compares the level of knowledge on subjects pertaining to pregnancy and birth in low-risk pregnancies when delivered in group versus individual settings. The study is an open, controlled, semi-randomized community trial. The intervention arm received prenatal care services in a group setting led by a nurse. The control arm received prenatal care services in routine individual meetings with a nurse. Knowledge of prenatal subjects was evaluated by questionnaires. The level of knowledge of the women in the group setting for the pre-service questionnaire was lower than that of the women in the individual group, but higher for the final questionnaire. After accounting for a starting point difference (the women in the individual care arm started with a higher knowledge score), the women in the group setting had a three-fold improvement in score compared to the women in the individual setting (p = 0.043). Prenatal care provided in a group setting may lead to better knowledge acquisition, leading to better awareness of pregnancy-related medical conditions and to enhanced adherence to recommended pregnancy tests and healthy lifestyle.

Effectiveness of the CenteringPregnancy program on maternal and birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization has emphasized the critical role of prenatal care in achieving the Millennium Development Goals to reduce child and maternal mortality. The CenteringPregnancy program is a widely recognized model of prenatal care. Several countries have attempted to implement the program in prenatal care practice; however, its effectiveness on maternal and birth outcomes has not been systematically evaluated and analyzed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of the CenteringPregnancy program on improving maternal and birth outcomes, including low birth weight, preterm birth, and postpartum depression.

DESIGN

This study evaluated and analyzed randomized controlled trials by comparing the CenteringPregnancy program with o0bstetric led prenatal care. Maternal and birth outcomes of interest included low birthweight, preterm birth, and postpartum depressive symptoms.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were utilized in this systematic review. Additionally, a supplemental Google Scholar search was performed to capture all relevant articles.

METHODS

All data were extracted independently by two trained researchers, who evaluated the quality of the study by examining the risk of bias. The biases of selection, allocation, measurement, reporting, and loss of follow-up were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias for these included randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis of eligible randomized controlled trials was conducted using Review Manager. Heterogeneity of studies was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Out of 591 articles reviewed, seven randomized controlled trials were included in this study. Findings showed that the CenteringPregnancy program was not associated with lower rates of preterm birth (0.88 [0.71-1.07], p = 0.20, I² = 0%), low birth weight (0.87 [0.68-1.12], p =0.29, I² = 0%), or 12-month postpartum depressive symptoms (0.07 [-0.12-0.26], p =0.46, I² = 69%). However, the CenteringPregnancy program was associated with reduced rates of 6-month postpartum depressive symptoms (0.49 [0.40-0.59], p < 0.01, I² = 40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence suggests that the CenteringPregnancy program and obstetric led care have similar effects on reducing the rates of preterm birth and low birth weight but different effects on postpartum depressive symptoms. More studies are needed to examine the effect of the CenteringPregnancy program on the improvement of postpartum depressive symptoms. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020171831. Tweetable abstract: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the effects of the CenteringPregnancy program on improving maternal and birth outcomes, including low birth weight, preterm birth, and postpartum depressive symptoms. Seven randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The findings suggested that the CenteringPregnancy program and obstetric led care had similar effects in reducing the rates of preterm birth and low birth weight. More studies are needed to examine the effect of the CenteringPregnancy program on the improvement of postpartum depressive symptoms.

Project20: Does continuity of care and community-based antenatal care improve maternal and neonatal birth outcomes for women with social risk factors? A prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Social factors associated with poor childbirth outcomes and experiences of maternity care include minority ethnicity, poverty, young motherhood, homelessness, difficulty speaking or understanding English, migrant or refugee status, domestic violence, mental illness and substance abuse. It is not known what specific aspects of maternity care work to improve the maternal and neonatal outcomes for these under-served, complex populations.

METHODS

This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal clinical birth outcomes for women with social risk factors accessing different models of maternity care. Quantitative data on pregnancy and birth outcome measures for 1000 women accessing standard care, group practice and specialist models of care at two large, inner-city maternity services were prospectively collected and analysed using multinominal regression. The level of continuity of care and place of antenatal care were used as independent variables to explore these potentially influential aspects of care. Outcomes adjusted for women's social and medical risk factors and the service attended.

RESULTS

Women who received standard maternity care were significantly less likely to use water for pain relief in labour (RR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62) and have skin to skin contact with their baby shortly after birth (RR 0.34, CI 0.14-0.80) compared to the specialist model of care. Antenatal care based in the hospital setting was associated with a significant increase in preterm birth (RR 2.38, CI 1.32-4.27) and low birth weight (RR 2.31, CI 1.24-4.32), and a decrease in induction of labour (RR 0.65, CI 0.45-0.95) compared to community-based antenatal care, this was despite women's medical risk factors. A subgroup analysis found that preterm birth was increased further for women with the highest level of social risk accessing hospital-based antenatal care (RR 3.11, CI1.49-6.50), demonstrating the protective nature of community-based antenatal care.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights how community-based antenatal care, with a focus on continuity of carer reduced health inequalities and improved maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes for women with social risk factors. The findings support the current policy drive to increase continuity of midwife-led care, whilst adding that community-based care may further improve outcomes for women at increased risk of health inequalities. The relationship between community-based models of care and neonatal outcomes require further testing in future research. The identification of specific mechanisms such as help-seeking and reduced anxiety, to explain these findings are explored in a wider evaluation.

Impact of breastfeeding interventions among United States minority women on breastfeeding outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In the U.S., strong ethnic/racial, socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic breastfeeding (BF) inequities persist, and African American and Hispanic women are less likely to meet their breastfeeding goals compared to White women. This systematic review (SR) was designed to answer the question: What is the impact of breastfeeding interventions targeting ethnic/racial minority women in the U.S. on improving BF initiation, duration and exclusivity rates?

METHODS

The SR was conducted following the Institute of Medicine Guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. The study protocol was developed and registered a priori in PROSPERO (ID#CRD42020177764). The electronical databases searched was MEDLINE All (Ovid). Search strategies were led by the team's expert public health librarian using both controlled vocabulary and free text queries and were tested against a validated set of relevant papers included in existing reviews. The GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

We included 60 studies that had randomized (n = 25), observational (n = 24), quasi-experimental (n = 9), or cross-sectional (n = 2) designs. The studies focused on populations that were multi-ethnic/racial (n = 22), only Hispanic (n = 24), only Black (n = 13), and only American Indian (n = 1). The study interventions were classified following the socioecological model: macrosystem/policy level (n = 6); community level (n=51), which included healthcare organizations (n = 34), The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (n = 9), and community organizations/public health institutions (n = 8); and  interpersonal level (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Policy and community level interventions delivered through WIC, healthcare facilities, and community agencies) are likely to improve BF outcomes among women of color. The combination of interventions at different levels of the socioecological model has not been studied among minority women in the U.S. Implementation science research is needed to learn how best to scale up and sustain effective BF interventions, taking into account the needs and wants of minority women. Thus, it is strongly recommended  to conduct large scale implementation research studies addressesing how to strengthen the different health and social environments surrounding women of color in the U.S. to improving their BF outcomes.

The contribution of group prenatal care to maternal psychological health outcomes: A systematic 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.

Evaluation of human immunodeficiency virus-adapted group prenatal care

BACKGROUND

Efforts to further decrease perinatal transmission of HIV include efforts to improve engagement and retention in prenatal care. Group prenatal care has been reported to have benefits in certain other high-risk groups of pregnant women but has not been previously evaluated in pregnant women living with HIV.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate changes in HIV knowledge, stigma, social support, depression, self-efficacy, and medication adherence after HIV-adapted group prenatal care.

STUDY DESIGN

All women living with HIV who presented for prenatal care at ≤30 weeks' gestation in Harris Health System (Houston, TX) between September 2013 and December 2017 were offered either group or individual HIV-focused prenatal care. Patients were recruited for the study at their initial prenatal visit. HIV topics, such as HIV facts, disclosure, medication adherence, safe sex and conception, retention in care, and postdelivery baby testing, were added to the standard CenteringPregnancy curriculum (ten 2-hour sessions per pregnancy). Knowledge and attitudes toward factors associated with adherence to HIV treatment regimens (stigma, loneliness, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms) were compared on written pre- and postsurveys. Surveys included 58 items derived from validated scales, with Likert and dichotomous responses. McNemar's test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and paired t-tests compared pre- and postsurvey responses.

RESULTS

A total of 190 women living with HIV received prenatal care in the clinic during the study period, 93 (49%) of whom participated in CenteringHIV. A total of 66 Centering participants enrolled in the study and 42 of those completed the pre- and postsurveys. Among women in the Centering program who completed pre- and postsurveys, significant differences were noted with improved perceived social support from family (P=.011) and friends (P=.005), decreased depression (Edinburg Postnatal Depression Scale, ≥10; 43% vs 18%; P<.001; Edinburg Postnatal Depression Scale score mean (standard deviation), 9.3 (5.8) pre vs 5.2 (4.9) post; P<.001), and decreased missed medication doses related to depressed mood (P=.014). No statistically significant differences were noted in HIV knowledge, HIV stigma, attitude, or self-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

HIV-focused group prenatal care may positively affect perceived social support and depression scores, factors that are closely associated with antiretroviral adherence and retention in the care for pregnant women living with HIV.

The effect of group prenatal care for women with diabetes on social support and depressive symptoms: a pilot randomized trial

Objective: To measure the impact of group prenatal care (GPC) on diabetes-specific peer support and depressive symptoms in women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes.Materials and methods: This is a planned secondary analysis of a two-center pilot randomized controlled trial conducted at Denver health (DH) and Washington University in St. Louis (WU) including Spanish (DH) or English (WU) speaking women with type 2 or gestational diabetes. Women were randomized to diabetes GPC or individual prenatal care (IPC) in the resident diabetes clinic. Participants completed an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) at randomization, at 38-week gestation and at 6-12 weeks postpartum. The diabetes support scale (DSS), which includes 12 questions answered on a Likert scale, was administered at 38 weeks. Analysis was by intention to treat (clincaltrials.gov#NCT02444325).Results: A total of 84 women were consented and randomized. Six withdrew consent (two from each cohort) or were lost to follow-up (two from IPC), and three did not complete the 38-week assessment (two from GPC and one from IPC), resulting in primary outcome data available for 75 women: 38 in GPC and 37 in IPC. More women randomized to GPC reported composite positive peer support on the DSS (52.5 versus 26.3%; p < .02). There were no differences in EPDS scores, depression (EPDS >10), or rates of improved EPDS score from baseline to 38 weeks.Conclusion: GPC for women with diabetes is associated with improved diabetes-specific peer social support with no significant impact on depressive symptoms.Clinical trial registration: Clincaltrials.gov NCT02444.

Right-Sizing Prenatal Care to Meet Patients' Needs and Improve Maternity Care Value

Prenatal care is one of the most widely used preventive care services in the United States, yet prenatal care delivery recommendations have remained largely unchanged since just before World War II. The current prenatal care model can be improved to better serve modern patients and the health care providers who care for them in three key ways: 1) focusing more on promotion of health and wellness as opposed to primarily focusing on medical complications, 2) flexibly incorporating patient preferences, and 3) individualizing care. As key policymakers and stakeholders grapple with higher maternity care costs and poorer outcomes, including lagging access, equity, and maternal and infant morbidity and mortality in the United States compared with other high-income countries, the opportunity to improve prenatal care has been given insufficient attention. In this manuscript, we present a new conceptual model for prenatal care that incorporates both patients' medical and social needs into four phenotypes, and use human-centered design methods to describe how better matching patient needs with prenatal services can increase the use of high-value services and decrease the use of low-value services. Finally, we address some of the key challenges to implementing right-sized prenatal care, including capturing outcomes through research and payment.

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.

Improving Prenatal Care for Minority Women

Since the inception of prenatal care in the early 1900s, the focus of care has been on risk reduction rather than on health promotion. Prenatal care began as individualized care, but more recently group prenatal care has been shown to be very successful in improving birth outcomes. For all women, an emphasis on improving health behaviors is important at this critical time while women are engaging regularly with the healthcare system. An emphasis on mental health promotion may decrease some of the disparities in birth outcomes that are well documented between minority and majority women, as minority women are known to experience increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Providing support for pregnant women and incorporating knowledge and skills through prenatal care may promote both physical and mental health in minority women.

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

BACKGROUND

Postnatal depression (PND) is a major depressive disorder in the year following childbirth, which impacts on women, their infants and their families. A range of interventions has been developed to prevent PND.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and safety of antenatal and postnatal interventions for pregnant and postnatal women to prevent PND; (2) apply rigorous methods of systematic reviewing of quantitative and qualitative studies, evidence synthesis and decision-analytic modelling to evaluate the preventive impact on women, their infants and their families; and (3) estimate cost-effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases (from inception to July 2013) in December 2012, and we were updated by electronic alerts until July 2013.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. All universal, selective and indicated preventive interventions for pregnant women and women in the first 6 postnatal weeks were included. All outcomes were included, focusing on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), diagnostic instruments and infant outcomes. The quantitative evidence was synthesised using network meta-analyses (NMAs). A mathematical model was constructed to explore the cost-effectiveness of interventions contained within the NMA for EPDS values.

RESULTS

From 3072 records identified, 122 papers (86 trials) were included in the quantitative review. From 2152 records, 56 papers (44 studies) were included in the qualitative review. The results were inconclusive. The most beneficial interventions appeared to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care [as shown by the mean 12-month EPDS score difference of -1.43 (95% credible interval -4.00 to 1.36)], person-centred approach (PCA)-based and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT)-based intervention (universal), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT)-based intervention and education on preparing for parenting (selective), promoting parent-infant interaction, peer support, IPT-based intervention and PCA-based and CBT-based intervention (indicated). Women valued seeing the same health worker, the involvement of partners and access to several visits from a midwife or health visitor trained in person-centred or cognitive-behavioural approaches. The most cost-effective interventions were estimated to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care (universal), PCA-based intervention (indicated) and IPT-based intervention in the sensitivity analysis (indicated), although there was considerable uncertainty. Expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for efficacy data was in excess of £150M for each population. Given the EVPPI values, future trials assessing the relative efficacies of promising interventions appears to represent value for money.

LIMITATIONS

In the NMAs, some trials were omitted because they could not be connected to the main network of evidence or did not provide EPDS scores. This may have introduced reporting or selection bias. No adjustment was made for the lack of quality of some trials. Although we appraised a very large number of studies, much of the evidence was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions warrant replication within randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty.

FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty. Future research conducting RCTs to establish which interventions are most clinically effective and cost-effective should be considered.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003273.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Does CenteringPregnancy Group Prenatal Care Affect the Birth Experience of Underserved Women? A Mixed Methods Analysis

We examined the birth experience of immigrant and minority women and how CenteringPregnancy (Centering), a model of group prenatal care and childbirth education, influenced that experience. In-depth interviews and surveys were conducted with a sample of racially diverse Centering participants about their birth experiences. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. Study participants (n = 34) were primarily low-income, Spanish-speaking immigrants with an average age of 29.7. On a scale from 1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied), women reported high satisfaction with birth (9.0) and care (9.3). In interviews, they expressed appreciation for the choice to labor with minimal medical intervention. Difficulties with communication arose from fragmented labor and delivery care by multiple providers. Centering provided women with pain coping skills, a familiar birth attendant, and knowledge to advocate for themselves. High reported satisfaction may obscure challenges to providing high quality childbirth care for marginalized women. Further study should examine the potential of Centering to positively impact underserved women's birth experiences.

Effectiveness of CenteringPregnancy on Breastfeeding Initiation Among African Americans: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

While breastfeeding initiation rates for African American mothers are low, an innovative model of group prenatal care, CenteringPregnancy, holds promise to increase breastfeeding rates. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effects of CenteringPregnancy versus individual prenatal care on breastfeeding initiation among African American mothers. Using a systematic approach and PRISMA guidelines, 4 electronic databases were used to search the literature. English-language studies, comparing CenteringPregnancy and individual prenatal care, including African American participants, and specifying breastfeeding initiation as an outcome were screened for inclusion. Study strength and quality were assessed and 7 studies were systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed. Participation in CenteringPregnancy increased the probability of breastfeeding initiation by 53% (95% confidence interval = 29%-81%) (n = 8047). A subgroup analysis of breastfeeding initiation among only African American participants was performed on 4 studies where data were available. Participation in CenteringPregnancy increased the probability of breastfeeding initiation by 71% (95% confidence interval = 27%-131%) (n = 1458) for African American participants. CenteringPregnancy is an effective intervention to increase breastfeeding initiation for participants, especially for African Americans. To close the racial gap in breastfeeding initiation, high-quality research providing specific outcomes for African American participants in CenteringPregnancy are needed.

A systematic review of concepts related to women's empowerment in the perinatal period and their associations with perinatal depressive symptoms and premature birth

BACKGROUND

The perinatal period, which we here define as pregnancy and the first year postpartum, is a time in women's lives that involves significant physiological and psychosocial change and adjustment, including changes in their social status and decision-making power. Supporting women's empowerment at this particular time in their lives may be an attractive opportunity to create benefits for maternal and infant health outcomes such as reductions in perinatal depressive symptoms and premature birth rates. Thus, we here systematically review and critically discuss the literature that investigates the effects of empowerment, empowerment-related concepts and empowerment interventions on reductions in perinatal depressive symptoms, preterm birth (PTB), and low birthweight (LBW).

METHODS

For this systematic review, we conducted a literature search in PsychInfo, PubMed, and CINAHL without setting limits for date of publication, language, study design, or maternal age. The search resulted in 27 articles reporting on 25 independent studies including a total of 17,795 women.

RESULTS

The majority of studies found that, for the most part, measures of empowerment and interventions supporting empowerment are associated with reduced perinatal depressive symptoms and PTB/LBW rates. However, findings are equivocal and a small portion of studies found no significant association between empowerment-related concepts and perinatal depressive symptoms and PTB or LBW.

CONCLUSION

This small body of work suggests, for the most part, that empowerment-related concepts may be protective for perinatal depressive symptoms and PTB/LBW. We recommend that future theory-driven and integrative work should include an assessment of different facets of empowerment, obtain direct measures of empowerment, and address the relevance of important confounders, including for example, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Results of the First Steps study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) programme compared with usual care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Background

Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a home-based nurse home-visiting programme to support vulnerable parents. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) has similar aims and materials and was demonstrated to be feasible in implementation evaluations.

Objectives

To determine whether or not gFNP, compared with usual care, could reduce risk factors for maltreatment in a vulnerable group and be cost-effective.

Design

A multisite randomised controlled parallel-group trial and prospective economic evaluation, with eligible women allocated (minimised by site and maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care.

Setting

Community locations in the UK.

Participants

Expectant mothers aged < 20 years with one or more previous live births, or expectant mothers aged 20–24 years with no previous live births and with low educational qualifications (defined as General Certificate of Education at grade C or higher in neither mathematics nor English language or, if they had both, no more than four General Certificates of Education at grade C or higher).

Intervention

Forty-four sessions of gFNP (14 during pregnancy and 30 in the first 12 months after birth) were offered to groups of between 8 and 12 women with similar expected delivery dates (the difference between the earliest and latest expected delivery date ranged from 8 to 10 weeks depending on the group) by two family nurses (FNs), one of whom had notified her intention to practise as a midwife.

Main outcome measures

Parenting was assessed by a self-report measure of parenting opinions, the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Version 2 (AAPI-2), and an objective measure of maternal sensitivity, the CARE-Index. Cost-effectiveness was primarily expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Data sources

Interviews with participants at baseline and when infants were aged 2, 6 and 12 months. Cost information from nurse weekly logs and other service delivery data.

Results

In total, 166 women were enrolled (99 to the intervention group and 67 to the control group). Adjusting for site and maternal age group, the intention-to-treat analysis found no effect of gFNP on either of the primary outcomes. AAPI-2 total was 7.5/10 [standard error (SE) 0.1] in both arms [difference also adjusted for baseline 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.15 to 0.28;p = 0.50]. CARE-Index maternal sensitivity mean: intervention 4.0 (SE 0.3); control 4.7 (SE 0.4) (difference –0.76, 95% CI –1.67 to 0.13;p = 0.21). The sensitivity analyses supported the primary analyses. The probability that the gFNP intervention was cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. However, in terms ofchangein AAPI-2 score (baseline to 12 months), the probability that gFNP was cost-effective reached 25.1%. A separate discrete choice experiment highlighted the value placed by both pregnant women and members of the general population on non-health outcomes that were not included in the QALY metric.

Limitations

Slow recruitment resulted in smaller than ideal group sizes. In some cases, few or no sessions took place owing to low initial group size, and small groups may have contributed to attrition from the intervention. Exposure to gFNP sessions was below maximum for most group members, with only 58 of the 97 intervention participants receiving any sessions; FNs were experienced with FNP but were mainly new to delivering gFNP.

Conclusions

The trial does not support the delivery of gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child abuse or neglect in this population.

Future work

A randomised controlled trial with modified eligibility to enable first-time mothers aged < 20 years to be included, and a modified recruitment strategy to enable faster identification of potential participants from antenatal medical records.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78814904.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 5, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation of nurse-led group support for young mothers during pregnancy and the first year postpartum versus usual care

Background

Child maltreatment is a significant public health problem. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) is a new intervention for young, expectant mothers implemented successfully in pilot studies. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gFNP in reducing risk factors for maltreatment with a potentially vulnerable population.

Methods

A multi-site, randomized controlled, parallel-arm trial and prospective economic evaluation was conducted, with allocation via remote randomization (minimization by site, maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Participants were expectant mothers aged below 20 years with at least one live birth, or aged 20–24 years with no live births and with low educational qualifications. Data from maternal interviews at baseline and when infants were 2, 6 and 12 months, and video-recording at 12 months, were collected by researchers blind to allocation. Cost information came from weekly logs completed by gFNP family nurses and other service delivery data reported by participants. Primary outcomes measured at 12 months were parenting attitudes (Adult-Adolescent Parenting Index, AAPI-2) and maternal sensitivity (CARE Index). The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective with cost-effectiveness expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The main analyses were intention-to-treat with additional complier average causal effects (CACE) analyses.

Results

Between August 2013 and September 2014, 492 names of potential participants were received of whom 319 were eligible and 166 agreed to take part, 99 randomly assigned to receive gFNP and 67 to usual care. There were no between-arm differences in AAPI-2 total (7 · 5/10 in both, SE 0.1), difference adjusted for baseline, site and maternal age group 0 · 06 (95% CI − 0 · 15 to 0 · 28, p = 0 · 59) or CARE Index (intervention 4 · 0 (SE 0 · 3); control 4 · 7 (SE 0 · 4); difference adjusted for site and maternal age group − 0 · 68 (95% CI − 1 · 62 to 0 · 16, p = 0 · 25) scores. The probability that gFNP is cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%.

Conclusions

The trial did not support gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child maltreatment in this population but slow recruitment adversely affected group size and consequently delivery of the intervention.

Trial registration

ISRCTN78814904. Registered on 17 May 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2259-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A systematic overview of the literature regarding group prenatal care for high-risk pregnant women

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

Group prenatal care (GC) models are receiving increasing attention as a means of preventing preterm birth; yet, there are limited data on whether group care improves perinatal outcomes in women who deliver at term. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our institutional experience with GC over the past decade and test the hypothesis that GC, compared with traditional individual care (TC), improves perinatal outcomes in women who deliver at term.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort study of women delivering at term who participated in GC compared with TC. A group of 207 GC patients who delivered at term from 2004 to 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 birth weight (<2500 g). Secondary outcomes included early term birth (37.0 to 38 6/7 weeks), 5 min 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.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two matched groups. GC was associated with a significant reduction in low birth weight infants compared with TC (11.1% vs 19.6%; relative risk (RR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 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 to 0.72). There were no significant differences in rates of early term birth and neonatal demise.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-risk women participating in GC and delivering at term had a lower risk of low birth weight and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with women in TC. This suggests GC is a promising alternative to individual prenatal care to improve perinatal outcomes in addition to preterm birth.

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.

Using item response theory to optimize measurement of chronic stress in pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

Utilize Rasch analysis to develop an optimized self-reported measure of stress in pregnancy and examine the association with patient demographics and biologic measures of stress.

STUDY DESIGN

Measured self-reported stress in pregnant women using 12 existing scales. Collected blood for biologic measures of stress (Epstein Barr Virus [EBV], C-Reactive Protein [CRP], Corticotropin Reactive Hormone [pCRH], and Adenocorticotropin Hormone [ACTH]). Used multidimensional scaling and Rasch analysis to produce an item reduced self-report measure.

RESULTS

Enrolled 112 women. Survey items reduced to two factors: perceived stressors and buffers of stress. Women with a domestic partner had lower perceived stress (p = 0.003). Caucasian women reported higher buffers of stress (p = 0.045), as did women with private insurance (p < 0.001), a planned pregnancy (p < 0.01), and a domestic partner (p < 0.001). Women with higher buffers of stress had lower levels of pCRH (adjusted p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Item reduced, optimized measures of stress were associated with significant differences in patient demographics and biologic measures of stress.

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.

Group based prenatal care in a low-and high risk population in the Netherlands: a study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a multifaceted group based care-model integrated in routine prenatal care, combining health assessment, education, and support. CP has shown some positive results on perinatal outcomes. However, the effects are less obvious when limited to the results of randomized controlled trials: as there are few trials and there is a variation in reported outcomes. Furthermore, former research was mostly conducted in the United States of America and in specific (often high risk) populations. Our study aims to evaluate the effects of CP in the Netherlands in a general population of pregnant women (low and high risk). Furthermore we aim to explore the mechanisms leading to the eventual effects by measuring potential mediating factors.

DESIGN

We will perform a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial, in a Western region in the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria are <24 weeks of gestation and able to communicate in Dutch (with assistance). Women in the control period will receive individual care, women in the intervention period (starting at the randomized time-point) will be offered the choice between individual care or CP. Primary outcomes are maternal and neonatal morbidity, retrieved from a national routine database. Secondary outcomes are health behavior, psychosocial outcomes, satisfaction, health care utilization and process outcomes, collected through self-administered questionnaires, group-evaluations and individual interviews. We will conduct intention-to-treat analyses. Also a per protocol analysis will be performed comparing the three subgroups: control group, CP-participants and non-CP-participants, using multilevel techniques to account for clustering effects.

DISCUSSION

This study contributes to the evidence regarding the effect of CP and gives a first indication of the effect and implementation of CP in both low and high-risk pregnancies in a high-income Western society other than the USA. Also, measuring factors that are hypothesized to mediate the effect of CP will enable to explain the mechanisms that lead to effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register, NTR4178 , registered September 17th 2013.

Group Prenatal Care Compared With Traditional Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing group care with traditional prenatal care. The primary outcome was preterm birth. Secondary outcomes were low birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and breastfeeding initiation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I statistic. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences were calculated using random-effects models.

TABULATIONS, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 10 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% compared with 9.3%, pooled RR 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.09). Group care was associated with a decreased rate of low birth weight overall (nine studies: pooled rate 7.5% group care compared with 9.5% traditional care; pooled RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96), but not among randomized controlled trials (four studies: 7.9% group care compared with 8.7% traditional care, pooled RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.16). There were no significant differences in neonatal intensive care unit admission or breastfeeding initiation.

CONCLUSION

Available data suggest that women who participate in group care have similar rates of preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and breastfeeding.

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.

Anguish, Yearning, and Identity

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to seek a better understanding of needs and access issues among pregnant, low-income Hispanic women. Hispanic women who attended a community prenatal education program participated in follow-up focus groups to explore their experiences regarding prenatal education, pregnancy resources, access to, and satisfaction with, the care available to them. Focus groups were facilitated by a leader, bilingual in English and Spanish, with knowledge of the Hispanic culture. Sessions were audiotaped, then translated into English for transcription. Data were analyzed according to guidelines by Colaizzi and three themes emerged: pregnant Hispanic women experienced a sense of anguish ( la angustia) from questions and unknowns rampant during pregnancy, leading to a yearning ( el anhelo) to learn and understand more, but with a desire to do so without sacrificing native identity ( la identidad). Implications of these themes for improving prenatal care for this population are explored.

A pilot study of prenatal care visits blended group and individual for women with low income

Healthy Pregnancy, Healthy Childbirth, Healthy Parenting (HPCP) is a blended prenatal care model that integrates group visits with individual prenatal visits. While group prenatal care has been found to have a positive impact on pregnancy outcomes, current models may not be feasible or desirable in all clinical settings. HPCP offers one educational group visit each trimester to improve knowledge of self-care during pregnancy and of childbirth and infant care. The program was piloted among women with low income in a southern metropolitan area. This article presents the findings of a pilot study that examined maternal knowledge acquisition and subsequent changes in self-efficacy and satisfaction with care. Suggestions for future use of a blended model for the delivery of prenatal care are shared.

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.

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.

Which Pregnant Adolescents Would be Interested in Group-Based Care, and Why?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if pregnant adolescents interested in group-based prenatal care have different demographic and psychosocial characteristics than those interested in individual prenatal care. Factors that influence the preferred model of prenatal care patients were assessed.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Prospective comparison of demographic and psychosocial characteristics of 153 pregnant adolescents enrolled in an adolescent-oriented prenatal and pediatric program at Children's Hospital Colorado.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pregnant study participants were queried and their preferred mode of prenatal care and reasons for that preference were examined.

RESULTS

Younger (16 years and younger) and primiparous adolescents were more likely to be interested in group care. Those not interested in group-based care were more likely to smoke and wanted to be pregnant. Most participants were interested in group-based prenatal care to belong to a peer group, receive additional education and support, and to have fun. Reasons participants were not interested in group-based care included concerns about belonging to a group, preferring individual care, and experiencing logistical concerns such as scheduling conflicts, limited transportation, and childcare resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying which patients are interested in group prenatal care influences development of the program model and recruiting procedures, maximizing the effectiveness of the program by offering services based on patient needs. Identifying factors that influence patients' prenatal care choices enables providers to offer support to reduce barriers to participation and structure care that is best suited to patients willing to commit to and engage in the program.

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.

The Effect of Centering Pregnancy versus Traditional Prenatal Care Models on Improved Adolescent Health Behaviors in the Perinatal Period

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if the CenteringPregnancy model of prenatal care improves maternal health behaviors in adolescent pregnancy.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective chart review comparing 150 pregnant adolescents who received prenatal care between 2008 to 2012 with CenteringPregnancy to those receiving care in traditional prenatal care models with either multiprovider or single-provider visits. Outcome measures included weight gain during pregnancy, compliance to prenatal care appointments, infant feeding method, postpartum follow up and contraceptive use postpartum. A χ(2) analysis was used to compare outcomes between the 3 groups at a 2-tailed α of .05.

RESULTS

Fifty individuals were evaluated in each group. Adolescents in the CenteringPregnancy group were more likely to comply with prenatal and postpartum visits and to meet the 2009 Institute of Medicine gestational weight guidelines for weight gain in pregnancy than were adolescents in either multiprovider (62.0% vs 38.0%, P = .02) or single-provider (62.0% vs 38.0%, P = .02) groups. The CenteringPregnancy group was also more likely to solely breastfeed compared with adolescents in the multiprovider group (40.0% vs 20.0%, P = .03) and include breastfeeding in addition to bottle-feeding compared with both multiprovider (32.0% vs 14.0%, P = .03) and single-provider (32.0% vs 12.0%, P = .03) patient groups. Additionally, the CenteringPregnancy group had increased uptake of long-acting reversible contraception and were less likely to suffer from postpartum depression.

CONCLUSIONS

CenteringPregnancy Prenatal Care program aids in compliance to prenatal visits, appropriate weight gain, increased uptake of highly effective contraception, and breastfeeding among adolescent mothers.

Perceptions of Latinas on the Traditional Prenatal Genetic Counseling Model

The traditional genetic counseling model encompasses an individualized counseling session that includes the presentation of information about genes, chromosomes, personalized risk assessment, and genetic testing and screening options. Counselors are challenged to balance the provision of enough basic genetic information to ensure clients' understanding of the genetic condition in question with a personalized discussion of what this information means to them. This study explored the perceptions Latinas have about prenatal genetic counseling sessions and aimed to determine if they had preferences about the delivery of care. Data were collected through focus groups and one-on-one, semi-structured interviews of 25 Spanish speaking Latinas who received genetic counseling during their current pregnancy. We implemented grounded theory to evaluate participant responses, and were able to identify common emergent themes. Several themes were identified including an overall satisfaction with their prenatal genetic counseling appointment, desire for a healthy baby, peace of mind following their appointment, lack of desire for invasive testing, and faith in God. Several participants stated a preference for group genetic counseling over the traditional individual genetic counseling model. Our data indicate that Latinas value the information presented at prenatal genetic counseling appointments despite disinterest in pursuing genetic testing or screening and suggest that group prenatal genetic counseling may be an effective alternative to the traditional genetic counseling model in the Latina population.

Understanding barriers to involving community midwives in identifying research participants; experience of the first steps randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

to explore barriers to the involvement of community midwives in identifying women in early pregnancy as potential participants in the first steps study, a randomised controlled trial of a new intervention to provide health and parenting support to potentially vulnerable women.

DESIGN

descriptive qualitative investigation using semi-structured audio-recorded interviews.

SETTING

community midwifery offices.

PARTICIPANTS

volunteer sample of 13 community midwives.

MEASUREMENT

themes derived from content analysis.

FINDINGS

understanding of their role in the research process was unclear to many midwives. Confusion arose about the difference between potential participant identification and trial recruitment. There were concerns about the eligibility criteria and it was suggested that there was insufficient time during booking appointments, and sometimes insufficient information, to determine potential eligibility. Midwives had concerns about some aspects of the intervention, which incorporated routine midwifery care, and had expectations that women may not like a group programme. This may have led some not to mention the trial. They were, however positive about the programme׳s potential for beneficial impacts on mothers and infants.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

dedicated research midwives may be the best option if research studies need to identify potential participants early in pregnancy, so that they can communicate with all their colleagues.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

if community midwives are asked to be involved in time-critical research they are likely to need additional local resources and support.

The effects of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on gestational age, birth weight, and fetal demise

We examined the effects of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care versus individually delivered prenatal care on gestational age, birth weight, and fetal demise. We conducted a retrospective chart review and used propensity score matching to form a sample of 6,155 women receiving prenatal care delivered in a group or individual format at five sites in Tennessee. Compared to the matched group of women receiving prenatal care in an individual format, women in CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care had longer weeks of gestation (b = .35, 95 % CI [.29, .41]), higher birth weight in grams (b = 28.6, 95 % CI [4.8, 52.3]), lower odds of very low birth weight (OR = .21, 95 % CI [.06, .70]), and lower odds of fetal demise (OR = .12, 95 % CI [.02, .92]). Results indicated no evidence of differences in the odds of preterm birth or low birth weight for participants in group versus individual prenatal care. CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care had statistically and clinically significant beneficial effects on very low birth weight and fetal demise outcomes relative to traditional individually delivered prenatal care. Group prenatal care had statistically significant beneficial effects on gestational age and birth weight, although the effects were relatively small in clinical magnitude.