Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 235–239 | Cite as

Use of a Community Mobile Health Van to Increase Early Access to Prenatal Care

  • Laura P. Edgerley
  • Yasser Y. El-Sayed
  • Maurice L. Druzin
  • Michaela Kiernan
  • Kay I. DanielsEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether the use of a community mobile health van (the Lucile Packard Childrens Hospital Women’s Health Van) in an underserved population allows for earlier access to prenatal care and increased rate of adequate prenatal care, as compared to prenatal care initiated in community clinics.

Methods: We studied 108 patients who initiated prenatal care on the van and delivered their babies at our University Hospital from September 1999 to July 2004. One hundred and twenty-seven patients who initiated prenatal care in sites other than the Women’s Health Van, had the same city of residence and source of payment as the study group, and also delivered their babies at our hospital during the same time period, were selected as the comparison group. Gestational age at which prenatal care was initiated and the adequacy of prenatal care — as defined by Revised Graduated Index of Prenatal Care Utilization (RGINDEX) — were compared between cases and comparisons.

Results: Underserved women utilizing the van services for prenatal care initiated care three weeks earlier than women using other services (10.2 ± 6.9 weeks vs. 13.2 ± 6.9 weeks, P = 0.001). In addition, the data showed that van patients and non-van patients were equally likely to receive adequate prenatal care as defined by R-GINDEX (P = 0.125).

Conclusion: Women who initiated prenatal care on the Women’s Health Van achieved earlier access to prenatal care when compared to women initiating care at other community health clinics.

Keywords

Prenatal care Mobile health van Underserved women Access to care 

References

  1. 1.
    Gortmaker S. The effects of prenatal care upon the health of the newborn. Am J Public Health 1979;69(7):653–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute of Medicine. Preventing Low Birthweight. Washingon, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Institute of Medicine. Prenatal Care and Low Birthweight: Effects of Health Care Expenditures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994, pp. 212–37.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Witwer, M. Prenatal care in the United States: Reports call for improvements in quality and accessibility. Fam Plann Perspect 1990;22(1):31–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore T, Origel W, Key T, Resnik R. The perinatal and economic impact of prenatal care in a low socioeconomic population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;154(1):29–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Healthy children: investing in the future. OTA-H-345 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ryan G, Sweeney P, Solola A. Prenatal care and pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;137(8):876–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amini S, Catalano P, Mann L. Effect of prenatal care on obstetrical outcome. J Matern Fetal Med 1996;5(3):142–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd Edition. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Nov 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown M, Finter L. U. S. screening mammography services with mobile units: Results from the national survey of mammography facilities. Radiology 1995;195:529–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeBruhl N, Bassett L, Jessop N, Mason A. Mobile mammography: results of a national survey. Radiology 1996;201:433–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kahn R, Moseley K, Thilges J, Johnson G, Farley T. Community-based screening and treatment for STDs: results from a mobile clinic initiative. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30(8):654–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sherrill W, Crew L, Mayo R, Mayo W, Rogers B, Haynes D. Educational and health services innovation to improve care for rural Hispanic communities in the USA. Rural and Remote Health 5 (online), 2005: 402. Available from: http://rrh.deakin.edu.au.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garrett, D. Mobile Access: Opening Health Care Doors. Nurs Manage 1995;26:29,31–3.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reguero W, Crane M. Project MotherCare: One hospital’s response to the high perinatal death rate in New Haven, CT. Public Health Rep 1994;109:647–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alexander G, Cornely D. Prenatal care utilization: its measurement and relationship to pregnancy outcome. Am J Prev Med 1987;3(5):243–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alexander G, Kotelchuck M. Quantifying the adequacy of prenatal care: A comparison of indices. Public Health Rep 1996;111:408–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bell J, Zimmerman J. Selection bias in prenatal care use of medicaid recepients. Mat Child Health J 2003;7:239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kogan M, Martin J, Alexander G, Kotelchuck M, Ventura S, Frigoletto F. The changing pattern of prenatal care utilization in the United States, 1981–1995, Using different prenatal care indices. JAMA 1998;279:1623–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alexander GR, Kogan MD, Nabukera S. Racial differences in prenatal care use in the United States: are disparities decreasing? Am J Public Health 2002;92:1970–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura P. Edgerley
    • 1
  • Yasser Y. El-Sayed
    • 2
  • Maurice L. Druzin
    • 2
  • Michaela Kiernan
    • 3
  • Kay I. Daniels
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Stanford Prevention Research CenterStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations