Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This study was undertaken to determine the cost savings of prevention of adverse birth outcomes for Medicaid women participating in the CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care program at a pilot program in South Carolina. Methods A retrospective five-year cohort study of Medicaid women was assessed for differences in birth outcomes among women involved in CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care ( n = 1262) and those receiving individual prenatal care ( n = 5066). The study outcomes examined were premature birth and the related outcomes of low birthweight (LBW) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) visits. Because women were not assigned to the CenteringPregnancy group, a propensity score analysis ensured that the inference of the estimated difference in birth outcomes between the treatment groups was adjusted for nonrandom assignment based on age, race, Clinical Risk Group, and plan type. A series of generalized linear models were run to estimate the difference between the proportions of individuals with adverse birth outcomes, or the risk differences, for CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care participation. Estimated risk differences, the coefficient on the CenteringPregnancy group indicator variable from identity-link binomial variance generalized linear models, were then used to calculate potential cost savings due to participation in the CenteringPregnancy group. Results This study estimated that CenteringPregnancy participation reduced the risk of premature birth (36 %, P < 0.05). For every premature birth prevented, there was an average savings of $22,667 in health expenditures. Participation in CenteringPregnancy reduced the incidence of delivering an infant that was LBW (44 %, P < 0.05, $29,627). Additionally, infants of CenteringPregnancy participants had a reduced risk of a NICU stay (28 %, P < 0.05, $27,249). After considering the state investment of $1.7 million, there was an estimated return on investment of nearly $2.3 million. Conclusions Cost savings were achieved with better outcomes due to the participation in CenteringPregnancy among low-risk Medicaid beneficiaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This mixed-methods process evaluation examined a state-wide, interagency collaborative in South Carolina that expanded CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care from two to five additional healthcare practices from 2012 to 2015. The evaluation focused on delineating core processes, strategies, and external contextual elements of group prenatal care implementation and scale-up. Success of this scale-up was enhanced by the effective use and creation of windows of opportunity, which allowed stakeholders to pursue actions consistent with their own values, at both state and organizational levels. Most importantly, strong political advocacy and state-level financial commitment for group prenatal care made it possible for clinics throughout South Carolina to begin providing CenteringPregnancy to their patients. Improved understanding of the processes involved in scaling-up pilot interventions may enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of future expansion efforts., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)