Search

Objective: To compare perceived quality of prenatal care and pregnancy-related self-reported empowerment between women participating in CenteringPregnancy versus those receiving individual prenatal care provided by certified nurse-midwives in the same clinic., Design: Nonexperimental, longitudinal, descriptive feasibility study of two independent groups., Setting/local Problem: A prenatal clinic in northern Texas where all care is provided by certified nurse-midwives., Participants: The study assessed 51 women receiving self-selected prenatal care in the form of individual prenatal care (n = 37) or CenteringPregnancy (n = 14)., Intervention/measurements: Outcomes analyzed included perceived quality of prenatal care and pregnancy-related self-reported empowerment., Results: The results showed no statistical significance between the individual prenatal care and CenteringPregnancy groups with regard to perceived quality of prenatal care or pregnancy-related self-reported empowerment., Conclusion: CenteringPregnancy has the capability to provide women with quality of care equal to that achieved through traditional prenatal care. Despite the lack of statistically significant findings, this study exposes several areas of interest and provides guidance for future studies evaluating prenatal care., (Copyright © 2019 AWHONN. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction Vulnerable pregnant women (e.g. women with low socio-economic status or recent immigrants) are less likely to receive adequate prenatal care or to attend perinatal education classes. CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a model of group prenatal care which combines assessment, education and support. This study aimed to assess patient experience among vulnerable women in group prenatal care compared to individual care. Methods Women participating in CP at a community-based health centre in urban Alberta were eligible to participate. A convenience sample of women who received individual care at a low-risk maternity clinic served as comparison. Women were asked a series of questions on their prenatal care experience. Demographic and patient responses were compared using Chi square, fisher's exact and t tests. Results Forty-five women accessing CP and 92 women accessing individual care participated. Women in CP were younger, more likely to be single and having their first baby than women in individual care. Women in CP were significantly more likely to report having received enough information on exercise during pregnancy (92 vs. 66%, p = 0.002), breastfeeding (95 vs. 70%, p = 0.002) and baby care (95 vs. 67%, p = 0.001). Women in CP were more likely to report that they felt their prenatal care providers were interested in how the pregnancy was affecting their life (100 vs. 93%, p ≤ 0.001). Discussion Group prenatal care provides a positive experience and improved information exchange among vulnerable populations. Programs interested in engaging, educating and empowering vulnerable pregnant women may benefit from implementation of group care.

Objectives Group prenatal care results in improved birth outcomes in randomized controlled trials, and better attendance at group prenatal care visits is associated with stronger clinical effects. This paper's objectives are to identify determinants of group prenatal care attendance, and to examine the association between proportion of prenatal care received in a group context and satisfaction with care. Methods We conducted a secondary data analysis of pregnant adolescents (n = 547) receiving group prenatal care in New York City (2008-2012). Multivariable linear regression models were used to test associations between patient characteristics and percent of group care sessions attended, and between the proportion of prenatal care visits that occurred in a group context and care satisfaction. Results Sixty-seven groups were established. Group sizes ranged from 3 to 15 women (mean = 8.16, SD = 3.08); 87 % of groups enrolled at least five women. Women enrolled in group prenatal care supplemented group sessions with individual care visits. However, the percent of women who attended each group session was relatively consistent, ranging from 56 to 63 %. Being born outside of the United States was significantly associated with higher group session attendance rates [B(SE) = 11.46 (3.46), p = 0.001], and women who received a higher proportion of care in groups reported higher levels of care satisfaction [B(SE) = 0.11 (0.02), p < 0.001]. Conclusions Future research should explore alternative implementation structures to improve pregnant women's ability to receive as much prenatal care as possible in a group setting, as well as value-based reimbursement models and other incentives to encourage more widespread adoption of group prenatal care.

We examined the birth experience of immigrant and minority women and how CenteringPregnancy (Centering), a model of group prenatal care and childbirth education, influenced that experience. In-depth interviews and surveys were conducted with a sample of racially diverse Centering participants about their birth experiences. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. Study participants (n = 34) were primarily low-income, Spanish-speaking immigrants with an average age of 29.7. On a scale from 1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied), women reported high satisfaction with birth (9.0) and care (9.3). In interviews, they expressed appreciation for the choice to labor with minimal medical intervention. Difficulties with communication arose from fragmented labor and delivery care by multiple providers. Centering provided women with pain coping skills, a familiar birth attendant, and knowledge to advocate for themselves. High reported satisfaction may obscure challenges to providing high quality childbirth care for marginalized women. Further study should examine the potential of Centering to positively impact underserved women's birth experiences.

Introduction: Women's definitions and experiences of the functions and benefits of their routine prenatal care are largely absent from research and public discourse on prenatal care outcomes. This qualitative study aimed to develop a framework of women's prenatal care experiences by comparing the experiences of women in individual and group prenatal care., Methods: We conducted serial qualitative interviews with racially diverse low-income women receiving individual prenatal care (n = 14) or group prenatal care (n = 15) through pregnancy and the early postpartum period. We completed 42 second-trimester, 48 third-trimester, and 44 postpartum interviews. Using grounded theory, the semistructured interviews were coded for themes, and the themes were integrated into an explanatory framework of prenatal care functions and benefits., Results: Individual and group participants described similar benefits in 3 prenatal care functions: confirming health, preventing and monitoring medical complications, and building supportive provider relationships. For the fourth function, educating and preparing, group care participants experienced more benefits and different benefits. The benefits for group participants were enhanced by the supportive group environment. Group participants described greater positive influences on stress, confidence, knowledge, motivation, informed decision making, and health care engagement., Discussion: Whereas pregnant women want to maximize their probability of having a healthy newborn, other prenatal care outcomes are also important: reducing pregnancy-related stress; developing confidence and knowledge for improving health; preparing for labor, birth, and newborn care; and having supportive relationships. Group prenatal care may be more effective in attaining these outcomes. Achieving these outcomes is increasingly relevant in health care systems prioritizing woman-centered care and improved birth outcomes. How to achieve them should be part of policy development and research., (© 2016 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)

Introduction: In response to a relatively high perinatal mortality rate in The Netherlands, the Dutch Health Ministry recommended changes to maternity care, opening a pathway toward more integrated woman‐centered services. Because of its potential to positively influence risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes, CenteringPregnancy (CP) group prenatal care was implemented. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study (n = 2318) and survey on women's experiences (n = 222) in eight primary care midwifery practices to investigate outcome differences between CP and traditional individual prenatal care. Data from the period 2011‐2013 were analyzed. Results: Primiparous and multiparous CP women attended more prenatal care visits compared with women who received individual care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.23 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18‐1.29] and 1.29 [1.21‐1.36]). Fewer primiparous CP women used pain relief during labor (0.56 [0.43‐0.73]), and they initiated breastfeeding more often (1.74 [1.15‐2.62]). Women participating in CP were more likely to feel that their wishes with respect to medication use (69.1% vs 54.4%, P = 0.039), physical activities (72.8% vs 52.5%, P = 0.008), and relaxation exercises (67.9% vs 35.6%, P ≤ 0.001) were listened to by care providers. They also felt more supported to actively participate in their care (89.6% vs 68.5%, P = 0.001) and felt more able to voice opinions about care (92.7% vs 73.9%, P = 0.002). Conclusions: The CP model is a good approach aligning with Dutch policy calling for women‐centered care and responding to the needs of pregnant women. This study supports CP scale‐up in The Netherlands and adds to the pool of international knowledge about CP implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Group prenatal care models have been in use in the USA for over 20 years and have shown benefits in reducing rates of preterm birth and low birth weight infants in high-risk civilian populations. Group prenatal care has been widely implemented at military treatment facilities, despite a lack of high-quality evidence for improved perinatal outcomes in this population.Materials and Methods: In this randomized, controlled trial, 129 patients at a military treatment facility received either traditional one-on-one prenatal care or group prenatal care using the CenteringPregnancy model. CenteringPregnancy care was administered by certified nurse midwives and family medicine residents and faculty. The primary outcomes were infant birthweight appropriateness for gestational age, maternal anxiety (as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and depression (as measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale), and patient satisfaction (as measured by the Short-Form Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire). Infant birthweights were compared using Chi-square tests for the categorical variables of small for gestational age (SGA), appropriate for gestational age (AGA), or large for gestational age. Maternal mood and satisfaction scores were evaluated before, during, and after the intervention and analyzed using rank sum tests. Additional demographic and outcome data were collected directly from participants and extracted from patient records.Results: Patients receiving group care were more likely to deliver an infant that was appropriate for gestational age, with an incidence ratio of 1.12 [CI = 1.01-1.25, p = 0.04]. Depression and anxiety levels remained similar between groups throughout the study. Satisfaction was similar between groups, though patients receiving group care reported higher satisfaction with the accessibility and convenience of their care at the study's end [p = 0.048]. There were no differences between groups in preterm births, maternal or neonatal morbidity, mode of delivery, maternal weight gain, or breastfeeding rates.Conclusions: Military parturients receiving group prenatal care in the CenteringPregnancy model were less likely to deliver an small for gestational age or large for gestational age newborn and were more likely to be satisfied with their access to care. Group prenatal care is well received by patients and may positively influence neonatal metabolic status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a multifaceted group based care-model integrated in routine prenatal care, combining health assessment, education, and support. CP has shown some positive results on perinatal outcomes. However, the effects are less obvious when limited to the results of randomized controlled trials: as there are few trials and there is a variation in reported outcomes. Furthermore, former research was mostly conducted in the United States of America and in specific (often high risk) populations. Our study aims to evaluate the effects of CP in the Netherlands in a general population of pregnant women (low and high risk). Furthermore we aim to explore the mechanisms leading to the eventual effects by measuring potential mediating factors. Design: We will perform a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial, in a Western region in the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria are <24 weeks of gestation and able to communicate in Dutch (with assistance). Women in the control period will receive individual care, women in the intervention period (starting at the randomized time-point) will be offered the choice between individual care or CP. Primary outcomes are maternal and neonatal morbidity, retrieved from a national routine database. Secondary outcomes are health behavior, psychosocial outcomes, satisfaction, health care utilization and process outcomes, collected through selfadministered questionnaires, group-evaluations and individual interviews. We will conduct intention-to-treat analyses. Also a per protocol analysis will be performed comparing the three subgroups: control group, CP-participants and non-CP-participants, using multilevel techniques to account for clustering effects. Discussion: This study contributes to the evidence regarding the effect of CP and gives a first indication of the effect and implementation of CP in both low and high-risk pregnancies in a high-income Western society other than the USA. Also, measuring factors that are hypothesized to mediate the effect of CP will enable to explain the mechanisms that lead to effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the likelihood of participating in group prenatal care (GPC) and associated factors among low-risk women receiving traditional prenatal care from obstetricians, family physicians or midwives, and to determine factors associated with likelihood of participating. Methods: Prior to completing a self-administered questionnaire, a 2-min compiled video of GPC was shown to pregnant women receiving traditional prenatal care. Data were collected on opinions of current prenatal care, GPC, and demographics. Biologically plausible variables with a p value ≤0.20 were entered in the multivariable logistic regression model and those with a p value <0.05 were retained. Results: Of 477 respondents, 234 [49.2 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 44.6-53.6 %] reported being 'definitely' or 'probably likely' to participate in GPC. Women were more likely to participate in GPC if they had at least postsecondary education [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.84, 95 % CI 1.05-3.24], had not discussed labour with their care provider (aOR 1.67, 95 % CI 1.12-2.44), and valued woman-centeredness ('fairly important' aOR 2.81, 95 % CI 1.77-4.49; 'very important' aOR 4.10, 95 % CI 2.45-6.88). Women placed high importance on learning components of GPC. The majority would prefer to be with similar women, especially in age. About two-thirds would prefer to have support persons attend GPC and over half would be comfortable with male partners. Conclusion: Approximately half of women receiving traditional prenatal care were interested in participating in GPC. Our findings will hopefully assist providers interested in optimizing satisfaction with traditional prenatal care and GPC by identifying important elements of each, and thus help engage women to consider GPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to systematically review the literature on group-based prenatal care related to patient participation, attendance, satisfaction, knowledge, pregnancy and birth outcomes, and program cost. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO sources were searched for English-language articles published any time prior to June 2010. Manual searches of bibliographies were conducted and experts were consulted to identify possible sources. Descriptive, cross-sectional, cohort, and randomized control studies that assessed group-based prenatal care were selected. Of the 15 articles reviewed, 11 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis of the study attributes and outcome data related to patient participation, attendance, satisfaction, knowledge, as well as breastfeeding, pregnancy and birth outcomes, and program cost. Results from the review show that group prenatal care may be associated with improved patient and birth outcomes including reduction in the number of preterm deliveries, higher patient participation and satisfaction, and increased initiation of breastfeeding. Prenatal group care research is limited by relatively few studies, most of which lack rigor. The current model of prenatal group care lacks a theoretical framework for describing and evaluating group processes as well as intermediary factors of prenatal and birth outcomes. Research on group care would benefit from additional randomized controlled trials that assess cost and sustainability and formally evaluate group process and intermediary factors thought to account for improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]