Premium
Group Prenatal Visits: Maternal and Neonatal Health Outcomes
Author(s) -
Groskaufmanis Lauren,
Brunner Huber Larissa R.,
Vick Tara
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of midwifery and women's health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.543
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1542-2011
pISSN - 1526-9523
DOI - 10.1111/jmwh.12764
Subject(s) - medicine , attendance , prenatal care , odds ratio , logistic regression , family medicine , odds , population , pregnancy , low birth weight , health care , obstetrics , pediatrics , environmental health , pathology , biology , economics , genetics , economic growth
Most studies evaluating the effect of group prenatal care on maternal and neonatal health outcomes assess the CenteringPregnancy model, which follows a set structure and educational curriculum. Group prenatal visits (GPVs) bring together pregnant patients for visits that include education and a health evaluation. GPVs represent a more flexible method of delivering group prenatal care, compared with CenteringPregnancy. Our study sought to determine whether GPV participation affects maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Methods The Myers Park Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic is located in Charlotte, North Carolina, and serves a racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse population. GPVs were offered at the clinic between July 2014 and July 2015. Retrospective data were collected for women who obtained prenatal care, either GPV or individual care, during that period. Demographic, birth, and postpartum data were extracted from the electronic health record. GPV participants were categorized by the percent of prenatal visits that were GPVs (limited GPV: <30% of visits as GPV; moderate GPV: ≥30% of visits as GPV). Logistic regression models were created to assess the effect of GPV participation on low birth weight, preterm birth, cesarean birth, and postpartum visit attendance. Results There were 355 study participants (GPV n = 78, individual care n = 277). Among GPV participants, 52.6% were classified as limited GPV, and 47.4% were classified as moderate GPV. The adjusted analysis showed limited‐GPV patients had lower odds of postpartum visit attendance, compared with individual‐care patients (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24‐0.94). Neither the unadjusted nor adjusted models demonstrated a statistically significant association between GPV participation and low birth weight, preterm birth, or cesarean birth. Discussion GPVs for prenatal care can be implemented without negative effects on maternal or neonatal health. However, fidelity to a more comprehensive model of group prenatal care may be necessary to achieve health outcome improvements.