Ickovics Jeannette R, Earnshaw Valerie, Lewis Jessica B, Kershaw Trace S, Magriples Urania, Stasko Emily, Rising Sharon Schindler, Cassells Andrea, Cunningham Shayna, Bernstein Peter, Tobin Jonathan N
Jeannette R. Ickovics, Valerie Earnshaw, Jessica B. Lewis, Trace S. Kershaw, Emily Stasko, and Shayna Cunningham are with the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT. Urania Magriples is with the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven. Sharon Schindler Rising is with the Centering Healthcare Institute, Boston, MA. Andrea Cassells and Jonathan N. Tobin are with the Clinical Directors' Network, New York, NY. Peter Bernstein is with the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY.
Am J Public Health. 2016 Feb;106(2):359-65. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302960. Epub 2015 Dec 21.
We compared an evidence-based model of group prenatal care to traditional individual prenatal care on birth, neonatal, and reproductive health outcomes.
We performed a multisite cluster randomized controlled trial in 14 health centers in New York City (2008-2012). We analyzed 1148 pregnant women aged 14 to 21 years, at less than 24 weeks of gestation, and not at high obstetrical risk. We assessed outcomes via medical records and surveys.
In intention-to-treat analyses, women at intervention sites were significantly less likely to have infants small for gestational age (< 10th percentile; 11.0% vs 15.8%; odds ratio = 0.66; 95% confidence interval = 0.44, 0.99). In as-treated analyses, women with more group visits had better outcomes, including small for gestational age, gestational age, birth weight, days in neonatal intensive care unit, rapid repeat pregnancy, condom use, and unprotected sex (P = .030 to < .001). There were no associated risks.
CenteringPregnancy Plus group prenatal care resulted in more favorable birth, neonatal, and reproductive outcomes. Successful translation of clinical innovations to enhance care, improve outcomes, and reduce cost requires strategies that facilitate patient adherence and support organizational change.
我们将基于证据的团体产前护理模式与传统的个体产前护理在出生、新生儿及生殖健康结局方面进行了比较。
我们在纽约市的14个健康中心开展了一项多地点整群随机对照试验(2008 - 2012年)。我们分析了1148名年龄在14至21岁、妊娠少于24周且无高产科风险的孕妇。我们通过病历和调查评估结局。
在意向性分析中,干预地点的女性生出小于胎龄儿(<第10百分位数;11.0%对15.8%;比值比 = 0.66;95%置信区间 = 0.44, 0.99)的可能性显著更低。在实际治疗分析中,团体就诊次数更多的女性结局更好,包括小于胎龄儿、胎龄、出生体重、新生儿重症监护病房住院天数、快速再次妊娠、避孕套使用及无保护性行为(P = 0.030至<0.001)。无相关风险。
“以孕为中心加”团体产前护理带来了更有利的出生、新生儿及生殖结局。将临床创新成功转化以改善护理、提高结局并降低成本需要促进患者依从性和支持组织变革的策略。