Effects of a Multi-site Expansion of Group Prenatal Care on Birth Outcomes
- 115 Downloads
Objectives Perinatal Quality Collaboratives across the United States are initiating projects to improve health and healthcare for women and infants. We compared an evidence-based group prenatal care model to usual individual prenatal care on birth outcomes in a multi-site expansion of group prenatal care supported by a state-wide multidisciplinary Perinatal Quality Collaborative. Methods We analyzed 15,330 pregnant women aged 14–48 across 13 healthcare practices in South Carolina (2013–2017) using a preferential-within cluster matching propensity score method and logistic regression. Outcomes were extracted from birth certificate data. We compared outcomes for (a) women at the intent-to-treat level and (b) for women participating in at least five group prenatal care visits to women with less than five group visits with at least five prenatal visits total. Results In the intent-to-treat analyses, women who received group prenatal care were significantly less likely to have preterm births (absolute risk difference − 3.2%, 95% CI − 5.3 to − 1.0%), low birth weight births (absolute risk difference − 3.7%, 95% CI − 5.5 to − 1.8%) and NICU admissions (absolute risk difference − 4.0%, 95% CI − 5.6 to − 2.3%). In the as-treated analyses, women had greater improvements compared to intent-to-treat analyses in preterm birth and low birth weight outcomes. Conclusions for Practice CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care is effective across a range of real-world clinical practices for decreasing the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. This is a feasible approach for other Perinatal Quality Collaboratives to attempt in their ongoing efforts at improving maternal and infant health outcomes.
KeywordsBirth outcomes CenteringPregnancy Group prenatal care Low birthweight Preterm birth
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services funded this study. The sponsor has not been involved in study design, data analysis, or writing of this article.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. (n.d.). Alliance for innovation on maternal health. https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Patient-Safety-and-Quality-Improvement/What-is-AIM. Accessed May 30, 2018.
- Bryson, A., Dorsett, R., & Purdon, S. (2002). The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies. London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2018). Perinatal quality collaboratives. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pqc.htm. Accessed May 30, 2018.
- Gareau, S., Lòpez-De Fede, A., Loudermilk, B. L., Cummings, T. H., Hardin, J. W., Picklesimer, A. H., et al. (2016). Group prenatal care results in Medicaid savings with better outcomes: A propensity score analysis of CenteringPregnancy participation in South Carolina. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20(7), 1384–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gupta, M., Donovan, E. F., & Henderson, Z. (2017). State-based perinatal quality collaboratives: Pursuing improvements in perinatal health outcomes for all mothers and newborns. Paper presented at the Seminars in perinatology.Google Scholar
- Hassan, S., Romero, R., Vidyadhari, D., Fusey, S., Baxter, J., Khandelwal, M., et al. (2011). Vaginal progesterone reduces the rate of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix: A multicenter, randomized, double- blind, placebo- controlled trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 38(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ickovics, J. R., Earnshaw, V., Lewis, J. B., Kershaw, T. S., Magriples, U., Stasko, E., et al. (2016). Cluster randomized controlled trial of group prenatal care: Perinatal outcomes among adolescents in New York City health centers. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 359–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Picklesimer, A. H., Billings, D., Hale, N., Blackhurst, D., & Covington-Kolb, S. (2012). The effect of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on preterm birth in a low-income population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 206(5), 415.e411–415.e417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
- Schneider, P. D., Sabol, B. A., King, P. A. L., Caughey, A. B., & Borders, A. E. (2017). The hard work of improving outcomes for mothers and babies: Obstetric and perinatal quality improvement initiatives make a difference at the hospital, state, and national levels. Clinics in Perinatology, 44(3), 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). The Birth Outcomes Initiative. https://www.scdhhs.gov/organizations/south-carolina-birth-outcomes-initiative. Accessed August 15, 2018.
- South Carolina Community Assessment Network (SCAN). (2016). http://scangis.dhec.sc.gov/scan/bdp/tables/birthtable.aspx. Accessed December 15, 2017
- Tanner-Smith, E., Steinka-Fry, K., & Lipsey, M. (2012). A multi-site evaluation of the CenteringPregnancy programs in Tennessee: Final report prepared for the Tennessee Department of Health. Nashville, TN: Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
- Urban Institute. (2018). Strong start for mothers and newborns evaluation: Year 5 project synthesis. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://downloads.cms.gov/files/cmmi/strongstart-prenatal-finalevalrpt-v1.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2019.