Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Dosage: A Key Factor When Assessing the Relationship Between Prenatal Case Management and Birth Outcomes

  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To assess whether a measure of prenatal case management (PCM) dosage is more sensitive than a dichotomous PCM exposure measure when evaluating the effect of PCM on low birthweight (LBW) and preterm birth (PTB). We constructed a retrospective cohort study (N = 16,657) of Iowa Medicaid-insured women who had a singleton live birth from October 2005 to December 2006; 28 % of women received PCM. A PCM dosage measure was created to capture duration of enrollment, total time with a case manager, and intervention breadth. Propensity score (PS)-adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were calculated to assess the risk of each outcome by PCM dosage and the dichotomous PCM exposure measure. PS-adjusted ORs of PTB were 0.88 (95 % CI 0.70–1.11), 0.58 (95 % CI 0.47–0.72), and 1.43 (95 % CI 1.23–1.67) for high, medium, and low PCM dosage, respectively. For LBW, the PS-adjusted ORs were 0.76 (95 % CI 0.57–1.00), 0.64 (95 % CI 0.50–0.82), and 1.36 (95 % CI 1.14–1.63), for high, medium, and low PCM dosage, respectively. The PCM dichotomous participation measure was not significantly associated with LBW (OR = 0.95, 95 % CI 0.82–1.09) or PTB (0.97, 95 % CI 0.87–1.10). The reference group in each analysis is No PCM. PCM was associated with a reduced risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes for Medicaid-insured women in Iowa. PCM dosage appeared to be a more sensitive measure than the dichotomous measure of PCM participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Issel, L. M., Anderson, R. A., & Kane, D. J. (2003). Administrative characteristics of comprehensive prenatal case management program. Public Health Nursing, 20(5), 349–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. (1998). The role of home-visitation programs in improving health outcomes for children and families. Pediatrics, 101(3), 486–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bradley, P. J., & Martin, J. (1994). The impact of home visits on enrollment patterns in pregnancy-related services among low-income women. Public Health Nursing, 11(6), 392–398.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Carabin, H., Cowan, L. D., Beebe, L. A., Skaggs, V. J., Thompson, D., & Agbangla, C. (2005). Does participation in a nurse visitation program reduce the frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes in first-time mothers? Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 19(3), 194–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hodnett, E. D., & Fredericks, S. (2003). Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3.

  6. McNaughton, D. B. (2004). Nurse home visits to maternal-child clients: A review of intervention research. Public Health Nursing, 21(3), 207–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Eckenrode, J., Cole, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1998). The promise of home visitation: Results of two randomized trials. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sangalang, B. B., Barth, R., & Painter, J. S. (2006). First-Birth outcomes and timing of second Births: A statewide case management program for adolescent mothers. Health and Social Work, 31(1), 54–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Silva, R., Thomas, M., Caetano, R., & Aragaki, C. (2006). Preventing low birth weight in Illinois: Outcomes of the family case management program. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10(6), 481–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ciliska, D., Mastrilli, P., Ploeg, J., Hayward, S., Brunton, G., & Underwood, J. (2001). The effectiveness of home visiting as a delivery strategy for public health nursing interventions to clients in the prenatal and postnatal period: A systematic review. Primary Health Care Research & Development, 2(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Keeton, K., Saunders, S. E., & Koltun, D. (2004). The effect of the family case management program on 1996 Birth outcomes in Illinois. Journal of Women’s Health, 13(2), 207–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wells, N., Sbrocco, T., Hsiao, C. W., Hill, L. D., Vaugh, N. A., & Lockley, B. (2008). The impact of nurse case management home visitation on birth outcomes in African-American women. Journal of the National Medical Association, 100(5), 547–552.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Issel, L. M. (1997). Measuring comprehensive case management interventions: Development of a tool. Nursing Case Management, 4, 132–138.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Issel, L. M., Slaughter, J. C., & Forrestal, S. G. (2011). Prenatal case management of pregnant women: What is the evidence for its contribution to a reduction of disparities in perinatal outcomes? In A. Handler, J. Kennelly, & N. Peacock (Eds.), Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in reproductive and perinatal outcomes: The evidence from population-based interventions (pp. 209–238). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Slaughter, J. C., & Issel, L. M. (2012). Developing a measure of prenatal case management dosage. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(5), 1120–1130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Case Management Society of America (CMSA). (2008). Definition of case management. Available at: http://www.cmsa.org/Consumer/GlossaryFAQs/tabid/102/Default.aspx. Accessed 23 August 2012.

  17. Issel, L. M., Forrestal, S. G., Slaughter, J., Wiencrot, A., & Handler, A. (2011). A review of prenatal home-visiting effectiveness for improving birth outcomes. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 40(2), 157–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huber, D., Sarrazin, M. V., Vaughn, T., & Hall, J. A. (2003). Evaluating the impact of case management dosage. Nursing Research, 52(5), 276–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bell, J. F., & Zimmerman, F. J. (2003). Selection bias in prenatal care use by Medicaid recipients. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 7(4), 239–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frick, K. D., & Lantz, P. M. (1999). Commentary: How well do we understand the relationship between prenatal care and birth weight? Health Service Research, 34(5 Part I), 1063–1073.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rothman, K. J. (2002). Epidemiology: An introduction (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Szklo, M., & Nieto, F. J. (2000). Epidemiology: Beyond the basics (1st ed.). Gaithersburg: An Aspen Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  23. D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Tutorial in biostatistics propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 2281(19), 2265–2281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oakes, J. M., & Johnson, P. J. (2006). Propensity score matching for social epidemiology. In J. M. Oakes & J. S. Kaufman (Eds.), Methods in social epidemiology (pp. 370–392). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Spreeuwenberg, M. D., Bartak, A., Croon, M. A., Hagenaars, J. A., Busschbach, J. J. V., Andrea, H., et al. (2010). The multiple propensity score as control for bias in the comparison of more than two treatment arms: An introduction from a case study in mental health. Medical Care, 48(2), 166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yanovitzky, I., Zanutto, E., & Hornik, R. (2005). Estimating causal effects of public health education campaigns using propensity score methodology. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(2), 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2006). Instruments for causal inference: An epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology, 17(4), 360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2006). Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 578–586.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wang, J., Donnan, P. T., Steinke, D., & MacDonald, T. M. (2001). The multiple propensity score for analysis of dose–response relationships in drug safety studies. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 10(2), 105–111.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Campbell, K. M., Deck, D., & Krupski, A. (2008). Record linkage software in the public domain: A comparison of Link Plus, The Link King, and a ‘basic’ deterministic algorithm. Health Informatics Journal, 14(1), 5–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Goldenberg, R. L., & Culhane, J. F. (2007). Low birth weight in the United States. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85(2), 584S.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kiely, J. L., Yu, S., & Rowley, D. L. (1995). Low birth weight and intrauterine fetal growth restriction. In L. S. Wilcox & J. S. Marks (Eds.), From data to action: CDC’s public health surveillance for women, infants, and children (pp. 185–202). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kramer, M. S. (2003). The epidemiology of adverse pregnancy outcomes: An overview. Journal of Nutrition, 133(5 Suppl 2), 1592S–1596S.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kotelchuck, M. (1994). The Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index: Its US distribution and association with low birthweight. American Journal of Public Health, 84(9), 1486–1489.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Huber, D., Hall, J., & Vaughn, T. (2001). The dose of case management interventions. Lippincott’s Case Management, 6(3), 119–126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tandon, S. D., Parillo, K., Mercer, C., Keefer, M., & Duggan, A. K. (2008). Engagement in paraprofessional home visitation: Families’ reasons for enrollment and program response to identified reasons. Women’s Health Issues, 18(2), 118–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hillemeier, M. M., Weisman, C. S., Chase, G. A., & Dyer, A.-M. (2007). Individual and community predictors of preterm birth and low birthweight along the rural-urban continuum in central Pennsylvania. The Journal of Rural Health, 23(1), 42–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ruberg, S. J. (1995). Dose response studies I. some design considerations. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 5(1), 1–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Health Resource and Service Administration. (2010). Announcing $90 million in affordable care act funding for maternal, infant and childhood home visiting program grants. Available from: http://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/homevisiting/index.html.

  42. Lydon-Rochelle, M. T., Holt, V. L., Cárdenas, V., Nelson, J. C., Easterling, T. R., Gardella, C., et al. (2005). The reporting of pre-existing maternal medical conditions and complications of pregnancy on birth certificates and in hospital discharge data. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193(1), 125–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kane, D. J., & Issel, L. M. (2005). Estimating Medicaid prenatal case management costs: The provider’s perspective. Nursing Economics, 23(4), 181.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the Iowa Department of Public Health for making the data used in this study available for my dissertation. Additional thanks to Arden Handler, Leslie Stayner, Deborah Rosenberg, Deborah Kane and Kristin Rankin for feedback on earlier versions. This research was funded, in part, by the Illinois Public Health Research Pre-doctoral Fellowship, the MCHB funded Maternal and Child Health Epidemiology Program, and the Training Program in Perinatal Epidemiology Grant (T32 HD046377).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Jaime C. Slaughter

  2. Division of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    L. Michele Issel & Arden S. Handler

  3. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Deborah Rosenberg & Leslie T. Stayner

  4. Iowa Department of Public Health, Bureau of Family Health, Bureau, IL, USA

    Debra J. Kane

Authors
  1. Jaime C. Slaughter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Michele Issel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arden S. Handler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah Rosenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Debra J. Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leslie T. Stayner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime C. Slaughter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Slaughter, J.C., Issel, L.M., Handler, A.S. et al. Measuring Dosage: A Key Factor When Assessing the Relationship Between Prenatal Case Management and Birth Outcomes. Matern Child Health J 17, 1414–1423 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1143-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1143-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation