Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy
- 6 October 2010
- reference entry
- review article
- Published by Wiley
- No. 10,p. CD000934
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000934.pub2
Abstract
Background The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation. Objectives To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low‐risk women with standard care. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field. Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal‐oriented care, with standard care. Data collection and analysis Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. Main results We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high‐income countries with individual randomisation; three in low‐ and middle‐income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low‐ and middle‐ income country trials. In studies in high‐income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low‐ and middle‐ income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal oriented'. Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (five trials; risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31). In the subgroup analysis, for high‐income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (2 trials; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80); for low‐ and middle‐income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (3 trials RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32). Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other reported clinical outcomes. Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs. Authors' conclusions In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.Keywords
This publication has 50 references indexed in Scilit:
- Intracluster correlation coefficients from the 2005 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health: implications for implementation researchPaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 2008
- WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal careThe Lancet, 2001
- How effective is antenatal care in preventing maternal mortality and serious morbidity? An overview of the evidencePaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 2001
- Who should provide routine antenatal care for low‐risk women, and how often? A systematic review of randomised controlled trialsPaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 1998
- Does antenatal care influence postpartum health behaviour? Evidence from a community based crosssectional study in rural Tamil Nadu, South IndiaBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1998
- Impact of midwife-managed care in the postnatal period: An exploration of psychosocial outcomesJournal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 1997
- Effectiveness of Interventions to Prevent or Treat Impaired Fetal GrowthObstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 1997
- A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Nurse‐Midwifery CareBirth, 1996
- Randomised, controlled trial of efficacy of midwife-managed careThe Lancet, 1996
- An evaluation of risk-based prenatal care: A randomized controlled trial: R. McDuffie, K. Bischoffx, J. Crossx, A. Beckx. Dept. Ob/Gyn, Kaiser Permanente, Denver, COAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1995