Group prenatal care for women with gestational diabetes (.)

Perspectives from parents and clinicians on an ecology-focused approach to a group well-child care

BACKGROUND

Group well-child care (GWCC) is a novel group-based alternative for pediatric primary care visits that may allow for adaptations that better tailor to the needs of underserved populations. This qualitative study investigates clinician and parent perspectives on the acceptability and feasibility of integrating ecology-focused content in GWCC using semi-structured interviews with GWCC parent-graduates and ecology-focused child clinicians.

METHODS

Ecology-focused child clinicians were purposively sampled via email outreach. GWCC parent graduates were recruited via announcement in private Facebook groups. One-on-one interviews were conducted via videoconference, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive approach. Parent and clinician thematic analyses were independently conducted to construct shared domains.

RESULTS

Nine GWCC parent-graduates and nine ecology-focused child clinicians were recruited into the study. Four overarching themes were constructed across parent and clinician responses: questions about clinical appropriateness, parent and clinician desires for educational support, influences of perceptions of nature on clinicians, and parent desires to develop independence and autonomy.

CONCLUSION

This study identified nuanced considerations from the perspective of parents and clinicians for the implementation of ecology-focused content in the GWCC setting. Understanding the range of preferences parents and clinicians may have over ecology-focused content can help GWCC clinicians in designing ecology-focused preventive counseling materials.

Innovating Diabetes Care in Pregnancy: Do Group Care Models Improve Outcomes and Equity? A Report on Research Supported by Pathway to Stop Diabetes

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) for diabetes and group prenatal care (GPC) for pregnant patients have emerged as innovative care delivery models. They have the potential to transform diabetes care by overcoming many of the time limitations of traditional one-on-one clinical visits. There is compelling evidence that SMAs improve glycemic control for nonpregnant patients with diabetes, GPC reduces Black and White health disparities in preterm birth, and diabetes GPC increases postpartum glucose tolerance test uptake among patients with gestational diabetes mellitus. GPC models stand out as one of few interventions that reduce racial health disparities, which we hypothesize occurs because their effect is inadvertently exerted on both the patient and clinician through an over 20-h meaningful shared experience. In this article I explore the evidence for SMAs and GPC in diabetes and pregnancy, theoretical underpinnings of the models, their potential to promote more equitable care, and future directions from my perspective as a physician in high-risk obstetrics and 2019 American Diabetes Association Pathway Accelerator Award recipient. This article is part of a series of perspectives that report on research funded by the American Diabetes Association Pathway to Stop Diabetes program.

Diabetes Group Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of diabetes group prenatal care on rates of preterm birth and large for gestational age (LGA) among patients with diabetes in pregnancy compared with individual diabetes prenatal care.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline (1946-), Embase.com (1947-), Scopus (1823-), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov .

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing diabetes group prenatal care with individual care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and LGA (birth weight at or above the 90th percentile). Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding at hospital discharge, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and 6-week postpartum visit attendance. Secondary outcomes, limited to the subgroup of patients with GDM, included rates of GDM requiring diabetes medication (A2GDM) and completion of postpartum oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistic. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Eight studies met study criteria and were included in the final analysis: three RCTs and five observational studies. A total of 1,701 patients were included in the pooled studies: 770 (45.3%) in diabetes group prenatal care and 931 (54.7%) in individual care. Patients in diabetes group prenatal care had similar rates of preterm birth compared with patients in individual care (seven studies: pooled rates 9.5% diabetes group prenatal care vs 11.5% individual care, pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01), which held for RCTs and observational studies. There was no difference between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care in rates of LGA overall (four studies: pooled rate 16.7% diabetes group prenatal care vs 20.2% individual care, pooled RR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.59-1.45) or by study type. Rates of other secondary outcomes were similar between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care, except patients in diabetes group prenatal care were more likely to receive postpartum LARC (three studies: pooled rates 46.1% diabetes group prenatal care vs 34.1% individual care, pooled RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.09-1.91). When analysis was limited to patients with GDM, there were no differences in rates of A2GDM or postpartum visit attendance, but patients in diabetes group prenatal care were significantly more likely to complete postpartum OGTT (five studies: pooled rate 74.0% diabetes group prenatal care vs 49.4% individual care, pooled RR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.19-2.09).

CONCLUSION

Patients with type 2 diabetes and GDM who participate in diabetes group prenatal care have similar rates of preterm birth, LGA, and other pregnancy outcomes compared with those who participate in individual care; however, they are significantly more likely to receive postpartum LARC, and those with GDM are more likely to return for postpartum OGTT.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021279233.

Implementation and evaluation of the centering pregnancy group prenatal care model in pregnant women with diabetes: a convergent parallel mixed methods study protocol

BACKGROUND

Diabetes during pregnancy has negative effects on both mothers and their fetuses. To improve perinatal outcomes and women's experience of care, the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests implementing health system interventions to enhance the use and quality of antenatal care. The main goal of this study is to implement and evaluate the outcomes of the Centering Pregnancy group care model for pregnant women with diabetes.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study will consist of three phases: a quantitative phase, a qualitative phase, and a mixed phase. In the quantitative phase, a randomized controlled trial will be conducted on 100 pregnant women with diabetes receiving prenatal care in Tabriz City, Iran. The Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) questionnaire will also be validated in this phase. The qualitative phase will use qualitative content analysis with in-depth and semi-structured individual interviews to explore pregnant women's understanding of the impact of the Centering Pregnancy group care model on their care process. The mixed phase will focus on the degree and extent of convergence between quantitative and qualitative data.

DISCUSSION

The implementation of the Centering Pregnancy group care approach is anticipated to empower women in effectively managing their diabetes during pregnancy, resulting in improved outcomes for both mothers and newborns. Furthermore, adopting this approach has the potential to alleviate the financial burden of diabetes on healthcare system.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT): (IRCT20120718010324N80/ Date of registration: 2024-01-03). URL: https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74206 .

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

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

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.

Interventions to increase the uptake of postpartum diabetes screening among women with previous gestational diabetes: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to summarize the current interventions aimed at improving postpartum diabetes screening attendance and to compare their effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

Literature searches were conducted in the Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PubMed from inception to March 20, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Quantitative studies involving an intervention to increase postpartum diabetes screening attendance among women with gestational diabetes mellitus were included.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute checklists were used for the quality appraisal of the included studies. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the comparative effectiveness of the relevant interventions aimed at improving postpartum diabetes screening rates.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies were included in this review with pooled data from 17,123 women. Studies included randomized controlled trials (n=11, including 3 US-based studies and 8 non-US-based studies) and nonrandomised studies (n=29, including 13 US-based studies and 16 non-US-based studies). Of the 14 studies that reported screening outcomes, 11 detected early type 2 diabetes at a rate ranging from 2.0% to 23.0%. The types of interventions identified included reminders (eg, postal letters, emails, and phone messages), educational interventions, screening methods and delivery, policy changes, antenatal groups, and multimodal interventions. Based on the network meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials, antenatal group intervention, which refers to antenatal patient education delivered in groups (1 US-based study), had the highest probability to be the most effective intervention (odds ratio, 10; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-77.0), followed by one-to-one educational intervention with written educational materials or counselling (odds ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.6-16.0). The results from nonrandomized studies indicated that flexible screening methods and delivery (2 US-based studies) had the greatest impact on screening uptake (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-10.0), followed by educational interventions (1 US-based study and 2 non-US-based studies) with antenatal patient education and written educational materials (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-6.3) and antenatal groups (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-6.7).

CONCLUSION

The presented evidence suggests that antenatal patient education delivered in groups and offering more flexible screening methods were associated with the greatest increase in attendance. The multimodal interventions and reminders could still be important if they were more theoretically grounded and were more integrated into the healthcare system.

CenteringPregnancy: A Review of Implementation and Outcomes

Importance

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

Objective

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

Evidence

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02640638.

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Diabetes Group Prenatal Care

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of Diabetes Group Prenatal Care to increase patient engagement in diabetes self-care activities.

STUDY DESIGN

A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted at two sites. Inclusion criteria were English or Spanish speaking, type 2 or gestational diabetes, 22 to 34 weeks of gestational age at first study visit, ability to attend group care at specified times, and willingness to be randomized. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, multiple gestation, major fetal anomaly, serious medical comorbidity, and serious psychiatric illness. Women were randomized to Diabetes Group Prenatal Care or individual prenatal care. The primary outcome was completion of diabetes self-care activities, including diet, exercise, blood sugar testing, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included antenatal care characteristics, and maternal, neonatal, and diabetes management outcomes. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Of 159 eligible women, 84 (53%) consented to participate in the study and were randomized to group (n = 42) or individual (n = 42) prenatal care. Demographic characteristics were similar between study arms. Completion of diabetes self-care activities was similar overall, but women in group care ate the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables on more days per week (5.1 days/week ± 2.0 standard deviation [SD] in group care vs. 3.4 days ± 2.6 SD in individual care; p < 0.01) and gained less weight per week during the study period (0.2 lbs/week [interquartile range: 0-0.7] vs. 0.5 lbs/week [interquartile range: 0.2-0.9]; p = 0.03) than women in individual care. Women with gestational diabetes randomized to group care were 3.5 times more likely to have postpartum glucose tolerance testing than those in individual care (70 vs. 21%; relative risk: 3.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-8.8). Other maternal, neonatal, and pregnancy outcomes were similar between study arms.

CONCLUSION

Diabetes group care is feasible and shows promise for decreasing gestational weight gain, improving diet, and increasing postpartum diabetes testing among women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

KEY POINTS

· Women with gestational diabetes in group care were 3.5 times more likely to return for postpartum glucose tolerance testing.. · Women with gestational diabetes in group care had less gestational weight gain during the study period.. · Diabetes Group Prenatal Care is a promising intervention to improve outcomes for women with diabetes in pregnancy..

Multidisciplinary Group Education for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

The value of diabetes education, focusing on lifestyle measures, in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is acknowledged, but requires intensive education and input of resources if done on an individual basis. Group education could be a valuable alternative to individual education. This study aims to investigate the impact of multidisciplinary group education on women’s knowledge about GDM, education, treatment satisfaction, and emotional status. Two hundred women with GDM were enrolled in a prospective observational study. Dutch speaking women were offered group education at their first visit after GDM diagnosis. Non-Dutch speaking women or women for whom group education was not possible received individual education. Individual follow-up with a dietitian was planned within two weeks for all women. Women receiving individual education (n = 100) were more often from an ethnic minority background compared to women in group education (n = 100) (32.0% (n = 31) vs. 15.3% (n = 15), p = 0.01). Knowledge about GDM significantly improved after education, with few differences between the two education settings. Both patients in group and individual education were equally satisfied with the content and duration of the initial and follow-up education. Of all group participants, 91.8% (n = 90) were satisfied with group size (on average three participants) and 76.5% (n = 75) found that group education fulfilled their expectations. In conclusion, women diagnosed with GDM were overall satisfied with the education session’s content leading to a better understanding of their condition, independent of the education setting. Group education is a valuable alternative to better manage the increasing workload and is perceived as an added value by GDM patients.

Gestational weight gain and group prenatal care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Group visits for chronic medical conditions in non-pregnant populations have demonstrated successful outcomes including greater weight loss compared to individual visits for weight management. It is plausible that group prenatal care can similarly assist women in meeting gestational weight gain goals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of group vs. traditional prenatal care on gestational weight gain.

METHODS

A keyword search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar was performed up to April 2017. Studies were included if they compared gestational weight gain in a group prenatal care setting to traditional prenatal care in either randomized controlled trials, cohort, or case-control studies. The primary and secondary outcomes were excessive and adequate gestational weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine guidelines. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q test and I² statistic. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and confidence intervals (CI) were reported with random-effects models from the randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies.

RESULTS

One RCT, one secondary analysis of an RCT, one study with "random assignment", and twelve cohort studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 13,779 subjects. Thirteen studies used the CenteringPregnancy model, defined by 10 sessions that emphasize goal setting and self-monitoring. Studies targeted specific populations such as adolescents, African-Americans, Hispanics, active-duty military or their spouses, and women with obesity or gestational diabetes. There were no significant differences in excessive [7 studies: pooled rates 47% (1806/3582) vs. 43% (3839/8521), RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23] or adequate gestational weight gain [6 studies: pooled rates 31% (798/2875) vs. 30% (1410/5187), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.08] in group and traditional prenatal care among the nine studies that reported categorical gestational weight gain outcomes in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Group prenatal care was not associated with excessive or adequate gestational weight gain in the meta-analysis. Since outcomes were overall inconsistent, we propose that prenatal care models (e.g., group vs. traditional) should be evaluated in a more rigorous fashion with respect to gestational weight gain.

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.

Prenatal visit utilization and outcomes in pregnant women with type II and gestational diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between the number of prenatal visits (PNVs) and pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes (GDM) and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

STUDY DESIGN

A 4-year prospective cohort study of women with GDM and DM and was conducted. Patients ⩾75th percentile for number of PNVs were compared with those ⩽25th percentile. The primary outcomes were large for gestational age (LGA) with birth weight >90% and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission for >24 h. Secondary neonatal outcomes included severe LGA (>95%), shoulder dystocia, hyperbilirubinemia requiring phototherapy, neonatal hypoglycemia, low 5 min APGAR score (<7) and preterm birth (prior to 37 weeks). Secondary maternal outcomes included mean third trimester fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin A1c (Hgb A1c) in labor, preeclampsia, gestational weight gain over Institute of Medicine recommendations, mode of delivery and maternal readmission within 30 days. Logistic regression was used to adjust for maternal race, nulliparity and body mass index.

RESULTS

Of the 305 women, 4 were excluded for unknown number of PNVs. Among the 301 included, the average number of visits was 12. Rates of LGA were similar between the high (28%) compared with low (18%) utilization groups (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-3.54). The high utilization group was 85% less likely to deliver an infant requiring NICU admission (aOR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.53) and 59% less likely to have a preterm birth (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.80). A time-to-event analysis to account for the fact that patients who delivered earlier had fewer weeks to experience PNVs showed that the risk for NICU admission was still significantly lower in the high PNV utilization group (hazard ratio 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.51) after adjusting for confounders in a Cox proportional hazard model. The mean Hgb A1c at the time of delivery was significantly better in the high (6.4%) compared with low (6.9%) utilization groups (P=0.01). There were no differences in other maternal outcomes based on prenatal care utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic women with high PNV utilization have better glycemic control in the 3 months prior to delivery and are significantly less likely to deliver preterm infants or infants requiring NICU admission. There may be innovative ways to provide prenatal care for GDM and DM to optimize maternal and neonatal outcomes.