Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 1067–1075 | Cite as

Predisposing, Enabling and Pregnancy-Related Determinants of Late Initiation of Prenatal Care

  • Katrien Beeckman
  • Fred Louckx
  • Koen Putman
Article

Abstract

Prenatal care is important for the health and wellbeing of women and their babies. There is international consensus that prenatal care should begin in the first trimester. This study aims to analyze the effects of predisposing, enabling and pregnancy-related determinants of late prenatal care initiation. In this prospective observational study, 333 women were recruited consecutively at the beginning of their prenatal care trajectory. Data was collected on the timing of the first prenatal visit and on socio-demographic and pregnancy-related characteristics, using a semi-structured interview. A multivariate binominal logistic regression was applied to analyze independent effects on late initiation of prenatal care. Bivariately late initiation of care was associated with being inactive on the labor market, non-European origin, not having lived in Belgium since birth, low income, receiving welfare benefits, not having a regular obstetrician and experiencing difficulties getting a first appointment. When adjusting for all determinants, our multivariate analyses showed that late initiation was associated with non-European origin, low income and not having a regular obstetrician. This study shows that late initiation of prenatal care is associated with predisposing and enabling determinants. In order to ensure timely initiation of care, policy-makers should focus on encouraging women to have a regular prenatal care provider before pregnancy and taking steps in lowering out-of-pocket fees for low-income women. Future research is needed to examine whether these determinants are associated with initiation of care only or whether they play a role in the pregnancy follow-up as well.

Keywords

Prenatal care (Mesh) Health behavior model Socioeconomic factors (Mesh) Pregnancy (Mesh) Initiation of care 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the Brussels Metropolitan Region, for which we want to express our gratitude. We also want to thank the members of our advisory commission for their help and advice in our research project. The members of this commission are S. Alexander, C. Buekenhout, B. Buysse, G. Masuy-Stroobant, M. De Spiegelaere, V. De Vis, G. Vanbrempt and C. Van Vaerenbergh. Further, this study was made possible thanks to the clinical centres that provided the necessary support and the participation of the pregnant women themselves. We want to thank the Brussels-Capital Health and Social Observatory for making their data available for the comparison with our sample.

References

  1. 1.
    Villar, J., & Bergsjo, P. (1997). Scientific basis for the content of routine antenatal care. I. Philosophy, recent studies, and power to eliminate or alleviate adverse maternal outcomes. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 76, 1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wildman, K., Blondel, B., Nijhuis, J., Defoort, P., & Bakoula, C. (2003). European indicators of health care during pregnancy, delivery and the postpartum period. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 111(Suppl 1), S53–S65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirkham, C., Harris, S., & Grzybowski, S. (2005). Evidence-based prenatal care: Part I. General prenatal care and counseling issues. American Family Physician, 71, 1307–1316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization. (2006) Provision of effective antenatal care. http://who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_newborn.en.html. [cited 2008 Nov 26]
  5. 5.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2008) Antenatal care. Routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. http://www.nice.org.uk/. March [cited 2008 Nov 26]
  6. 6.
    Sunil, T. S., Spears, W. D., Hook, L., Castillo, J., & Torres, C. (2010). Initiation of and barriers to prenatal care use among low-income women in San Antonio, Texas. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 14, 133–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park, J. H., Vincent, D., & Hastings-Tolsma, M. (2007). Disparity in prenatal care among women of colour in the USA. Midwifery, 23, 28–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alderliesten, M. E., Vrijkotte, T. G., van der Wal, M. F., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Late start of antenatal care among ethnic minorities in a large cohort of pregnant women. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 114, 1232–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nothnagle, M., Marchi, K., Egerter, S., & Braveman, P. (2000). Risk factors for late or no prenatal care following Medicaid expansions in California. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4, 251–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rowe, R. E., Magee, H., Quigley, M. A., Heron, P., Askham, J., & Brocklehurst, P. (2008). Social and ethnic differences in attendance for antenatal care in England. Public Health, 122, 1363–1372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kupek, E., Petrou, S., Vause, S., & Maresh, M. (2002). Clinical, provider and sociodemographic predictors of late initiation of antenatal care in England and Wales. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 109, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quelopana, A. M., Champion, J. D., & Salazar, B. C. (2009). Factors predicting the initiation of prenatal care in Mexican women. Midwifery, 25, 277–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, A. A., Hatcher, B. J., El-Khorazaty, M. N., Milligan, R. A., Bhaskar, B., Rodan, M. F., et al. (2007). Determinants of inadequate prenatal care utilization by African American women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 18, 620–636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    gado-Rodriguez, M., Gomez-Olmedo, M., Bueno-Cavanillas, A., & Galvez-Vargas, R. (1997). Unplanned pregnancy as a major determinant in inadequate use of prenatal care. Preventive Medicine, 26, 834–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roberts, R. O., Yawn, B. P., Wickes, S. L., Field, C. S., Garretson, M., & Jacobsen, S. J. (1998). Barriers to prenatal care: Factors associated with late initiation of care in a middle-class midwestern community. The Journal of Family Practice, 47, 53–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pagnini, D. L., & Reichman, N. E. (2000). Psychosocial factors and the timing of prenatal care among women in New Jersey’s Health Start program. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 56–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daniels, P., Noe, G. F., & Mayberry, R. (2006). Barriers to prenatal care among Black women of low socioeconomic status. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30, 188–198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rowe, R. E., & Garcia, J. (2003). Social class, ethnicity and attendance for antenatal care in the United Kingdom: A systematic review. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 25, 113–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    LaVeist, T. A., Keith, V. M., & Gutierrez, M. L. (1995). Black/white differences in prenatal care utilization: An assessment of predisposing and enabling factors. Health Services Research, 30, 43–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trinh, L. T., Dibley, M. J., & Byles, J. (2007). Determinants of antenatal care utilization in three rural areas of Vietnam. Public Health Nursing, 24, 300–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ivanov, L. L. (2000). Use of a Western theoretical model to investigate the relationships among characteristics of pregnant women, utilization, and satisfaction with prenatal care services in St. Petersburg, Russia. Public Health Nursing, 17, 111–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andersen, R., & Newman, J. F. (1973). Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and society, 51, 95–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Andersen, R. M. (1995). Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    What are equivalence scales? Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2009 September 17. http://www.oecd.org. [cited 2009 Dec 9]
  25. 25.
    European Commission: Eurostat. (2009). National mean and median income by household type. European Commission: Eurostat 2009 December 16. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home. [cited 2009 Dec 7]
  26. 26.
    European Commission: Eurostat. (2009). Living conditions in 2008. 17% of EU27 population at risk of poverty. European Commission: Eurostat 2009 December 16. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. [cited 2009 Dec 9]
  27. 27.
    Andridge, R. R., & Little, R. J. A. (2010). A review of hot deck imputation for survey non-response. International Statistical Review, 78, 40–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fox-Wasylyshyn, S. M., & El-Masri, M. M. (2005). Handling missing data in self-report measures. Research in Nursing and Health, 28, 488–495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    StataCorp. (2005). Stata statiscial software: release 9. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buekens, P., Kotelchuck, M., Blondel, B., Kristensen, F. B., Chen, J. H., & Masuy-Stroobant, G. (1993). A comparison of prenatal care use in the United States and Europe. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 31–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Downe, S., Finlayson, K., Walsh, D., & Lavender, T. (2009). ‘Weighing up and balancing out’: A meta-synthesis of barriers to antenatal care for marginalised women in high-income countries. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116, 518–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roberts, R. O., Bergstralh, E. J., Schmidt, L., & Jacobsen, S. J. (1996). Comparison of self-reported and medical record health care utilization measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 989–995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Gauquier, K., & Remacle, A. (2007). Prenatale zorg in België in 2005. Studie van het Intermutualistisch Agentschap. Brussel: IMA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of Medical Sociology and Health SciencesVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Interuniversity Center for Health Economics ResearchVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations