Postpartum Contraceptive Use and Other Reproductive Health Outcomes Among CenteringPregnancy Group Prenatal Care Participants

The Effects of CenteringPregnancy: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation

Background/Objectives: CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a group prenatal care model that empowers pregnant women through risk assessment, education, and social support. CP participants have more contact time with providers compared to those in traditional prenatal care. Despite contradictory findings in the literature, this study aimed to determine if CP leads to better health outcomes for women and their infants. Methods: A quasi-experimental design was used. Data were collected from hospital birth records of both CP participants and those receiving traditional prenatal care from 2018 to 2020. Various treatment effect models for observational data were used to assess CP's effectiveness. Results: CP improved women's access to prenatal care and reduced rates of preterm birth and perinatal death compared to traditional prenatal care. It also resulted in longer gestation periods and better infant birth weight outcomes. However, no significant differences were found in delivery type (vaginal or C-section) or breastfeeding initiation and continuation between the two groups. Conclusions: These findings provide compelling evidence that CenteringPregnancy can lead to significantly improved maternal and infant health outcomes by demonstrating its effectiveness in a real-world clinical setting.

Women's experiences with Centering-Based Group Care in Zhejiang China: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The group prenatal care model, which caters to women with low medical needs but high support needs, has become a highly prevalent and innovative approach implemented globally. For Centering-Based Group Care (CBGC) to remain effective, women's evaluations of the quality of care and perspectives about the model are crucial.

AIM

This study aimed to describe women's appraisal of CBGC quality and explore the experiences of women in the mixed-methods pilot study conducted in Zhejiang, China.

METHODS

From August 2021 to December 2022, 20 women provided complete quantitative data using the Quality of Prenatal Care Questionnaire before hospital discharge. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at 6 months postpartum. Qualitative data were analysed using Colaizzi's method.

FINDINGS

The mean (standard deviation) total score (of the 5) of the questionnaire was 4.43 (0.1) with a good quality of CBGC. Qualitative research identified five themes: motivations and concerns for participation, the appeal of interactive learning, the development of community ties and social support, healing from psychological trauma with CBGC, and suggestions for CBGC enhancement.

DISCUSSION

Women rated CBGC quality as good and benefited significantly from it in the study. As a new alternative option, the women's accounts suggested that CBGC performed excellently in enhancing knowledge, strengthening social bonds, and providing psychological support.

CONCLUSION

CBGC quality cannot be determined based on limited the sample size. This pilot study provides evidence regarding the beneficial effects of knowledge, socialization, and psychological healing on CBGC. Further research is suggested to measure CBGC effectiveness and quality.

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.

Group prenatal care successes, challenges, and frameworks for scaling up: a case study in adopting health care innovations

BACKGROUND

Group prenatal care enhances quality of care, improves outcomes, and lowers costs. However, this healthcare innovation is not widely available. Using a case-study approach, our objectives were to (1) examine organizational characteristics that support implementation of Expect With Me group prenatal care and (2) identify key factors influencing adoption and sustainability.

METHODS

We studied five clinical sites implementing group prenatal care, collecting qualitative data including focus group discussions with clinicians (n = 4 focus groups, 41 clinicians), key informant interviews (n = 9), and administrative data. We utilized a comparative qualitative case-study approach to characterize clinical sites and explain organizational traits that fostered implementation success. We characterized adopting and non-adopting (unable to sustain group prenatal care) sites in terms of fit for five criteria specified in the Framework for Transformational Change: (1) impetus to transform, (2) leadership commitment to quality, (3) improvement initiatives that engage staff, (4) alignment to achieve organization-wide goals, and (5) integration.

RESULTS

Two sites were classified as adopters and three as non-adopters based on duration, frequency, and consistency of group prenatal care implementation. Adopters had better fit with the five criteria for transformational change. Adopting organizations were more successful implementing group prenatal care due to alignment between organizational goals and resources, dedicated healthcare providers coordinating group care, space for group prenatal care sessions, and strong commitment from organization leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting sites were more likely to integrate group prenatal care when stakeholders achieved alignment across staff on organizational change goals, leadership buy-in, and committed institutional support and dedicated resources to sustain it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Expect With Me intervention's design and hypotheses were preregistered: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02169024 . Date: June 19, 2014.

The effects of CenteringPregnancy on maternal and infant health outcomes: a moderation analysis

BACKGROUND

CenteringPregnancy (CP) has been expected to produce beneficial outcomes for women and their infants. However, previous studies paid little attention to testing variations in CP's effects across women from different demographic groups. This study aimed to test how multiple demographic factors (obesity, race, ethnicity, marital status and socioeconomic status) moderate CP's effects on health outcomes.

METHODS

This study employed a quasi-experimental design. De-identified hospital birth data were collected from 216 CP participants and 1159 non-CP participants. We estimated the average treatment effect of CP on outcome variables as a baseline. Then we estimated the average marginal effect of CP by adding each of the moderating variables in regression adjustment models.

RESULTS

CP produced salutary effects among those who were obese or overweight and unmarried as well as women with lower socioeconomic status. These salutary effects were also strengthened as maternal age increased. However, CP was ineffective for Hispanic/Latinx women.

CONCLUSIONS

CP produced more beneficial health outcomes for high-risk women such as obese, unmarried women and those with lower socioeconomic status. These are meaningful findings from a public health perspective.

The Impact of Group Prenatal Care on Interpregnancy Interval

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether participation in CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care is associated with decreased risk of an interpregnancy interval (IPI) ≤6 months.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women enrolled in Missouri Medicaid from 2007 to 2014 using maternal Medicaid data linked to infant birth certificate records. Inclusion criteria were women ≥11 years old, ≥1 viable singleton delivery during the study period, residency in St. Louis city or county, and ≥2 prenatal visits. The primary outcome was an IPI ≤6 months. Secondary outcomes included IPI ≤12 months, IPI ≤18 months, postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and postpartum LARC or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) uptake. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders including maternal age, race, obesity, nulliparity, marital status, diabetes, hypertension, prior preterm birth, and maternal education.

RESULTS

Of the 54,968 pregnancies meeting inclusion criteria, 1,550 (3%) participated in CenteringPregnancy. CenteringPregnancy participants were less likely to have an IPI ≤6 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.79) and an IPI ≤12 months (aOR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.62-0.87). However, there was no difference for an IPI ≤18 months (aOR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.77-1.13). Women in CenteringPregnancy were more likely to use LARC for postpartum contraception (aOR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.20-1.57).

CONCLUSION

Participation in CenteringPregnancy is associated with a significant decrease in an IPI ≤6 and ≤12 months and a significant increase in postpartum LARC uptake among women enrolled in Missouri Medicaid compared with women in traditional prenatal care.

KEY POINTS

· CenteringPregnancy is associated with a significant decrease in interpregnancy intervals ≤6 and ≤12 months.. · LARC uptake is significantly higher among patients participating in CenteringPregnancy.. · CenteringPregnancy participation enhances self-efficacy in making contraception decisions and promotes healthy pregnancy spacing..

CenteringPregnancy: A Review of Implementation and Outcomes

Importance

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

Objective

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

Evidence

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Group vs traditional prenatal care for improving racial equity in preterm birth and low birthweight: the Centering and Racial Disparities randomized clinical trial study

BACKGROUND

The United States has persistently high rates of preterm birth and low birthweight and is characterized by significant racial disparities in these rates. Innovative group prenatal care models, such as CenteringPregnancy, have been proposed as a potential approach to improve the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight and to reduce disparities in these pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to test whether participation in group prenatal care would reduce the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight compared with individual prenatal care and whether group prenatal care would reduce the racial disparity in these rates between Black and White patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized controlled trial among medically low-risk pregnant patients at a single study site. Eligible patients were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity and randomly allocated 1:1 between group and individual prenatal care. The primary outcomes were preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation and low birthweight of <2500 g. The primary analysis was performed according to the intent-to-treat principle. The secondary analyses were performed according to the as-treated principle using modified intent-to-treat and per-compliance approaches. The analysis of effect modification by race and ethnicity was planned.

RESULTS

A total of 2350 participants were enrolled, with 1176 assigned to group prenatal care and 1174 assigned to individual prenatal care. The study population included 952 Black (40.5%), 502 Hispanic (21.4%), 863 White (36.8%), and 31 "other races or ethnicity" (1.3%) participants. Group prenatal care did not reduce the rate of preterm birth (10.4% vs 8.7%; odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.63; P=.17) or low birthweight (9.6% vs 8.9%; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.45; P=.62) compared with individual prenatal care. In subgroup analysis, greater attendance in prenatal care was associated with lower rates of preterm birth and low birthweight. This effect was most noticeable for the rates of low birthweight for Black participants in group care: intent to treat (51/409 [12.5%]), modified intent to treat (36/313 [11.5%]), and per compliance (20/240 [8.3%]). Although the rates of low birthweight were significantly higher for Black participants than White participants seen in individual care (adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.50), the difference was not significant for Black participants in group care compared with their White counterparts (adjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-3.34).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the overall rates of preterm birth or low birthweight between group and individual prenatal care. With increased participation in group prenatal care, lower rates of preterm birth and low birthweight for Black participants were observed. The role of group care models in reducing racial disparities in these birth outcomes requires further study.