Perinatal Periods of Risk: A Community Approach for Using Data to Improve Women and Infants’ Health
- First Online:
This paper provides an overview of the origins, purpose, and methods of the Perinatal Periods of Risk (PPOR) approach to community-based planning for action to improve maternal and infant health outcomes. PPOR includes a new analytic framework that enables urban communities to better understand and address fetal and infant mortality. This article serves as the core reference for accompanying specific PPOR methods and practice articles. PPOR is based on core principles of full community engagement and equity and follows a six stage community-based planning process. In Stage 1, communities are mobilized and engaged, related planning efforts aligned, and community and analytic readiness assessed. In Stage 2, feto-infant mortality is mapped, excess mortality is estimated, likely causes of feto-infant mortality are determined, and appropriate actions are suggested. Stage 3 produces action plans for targeted prevention strategies. Stages 4 and 5 include implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Stage 6 fosters political will to sustain efforts. PPOR can be used in local maternal child health (MCH) practice for improving perinatal outcomes. MCH programs can use PPOR to integrate health assessments, initiate planning, identify significant gaps, target more in-depth inquiry, and suggest clear interventions for lowering feto-infant mortality. PPOR enables greater cooperation in improving MCH through more effective data use, strengthened data capacity, and greater shared understanding of complex infant mortality issues. PPOR offers local health departments and their community partners a comprehensive approach to address the health of women and infants in their jurisdictions.
KeywordsPerinatal periods of risk (PPOR) Community health planning Feto-infant mortality Preconception health Health disparities
- 1.Child Trends KIDS COUNT Special Report. (2001). The right start city trends—Conditions of babies and their families in America’s largest cities (1990–1998). Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.Google Scholar
- 2.Andrulis, D. (1997). The urban health penalty: New dimensions and directions for inner-city health care. Inner-city health care. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians.Google Scholar
- 5.Haynatzka, V., et al. (2002). Racial and ethnic disparities in infant mortality rates—60 largest U.S. cities, 1995–1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(15), 329–332, 343.Google Scholar
- 6.Kent, H. M., & Fitzgerald, M. T. (2003). Women’s health brief: Toward urban women’s health. Omaha: CityMatCH at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Report nr 1.Google Scholar
- 7.IOM. (1988). The future of public health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 8.IOM. (2002). The future of the public’s health in the 21st centuryi (pp. 1–510). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (p. 101).Google Scholar
- 9.Grason, H., & Guyer, B. (1995). Public MCH program functions framework: essential public health services to promote maternal and child health in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Child and Adolescent Health Policy Center.Google Scholar
- 12.Israel, B., Eng, E., Schulz, A., & Parker, E. (Eds.). (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- 13.MacDorman, M. F., & Atkinson, J. O. (1998). Infant mortality statistics from the linked birth/infant death data set—1995 period data. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 46(6 Suppl 2), 1–22.Google Scholar
- 14.CityMatCH. (2008). CityMatCH Website. CityMatCH at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. www.citymatch.org/. Accessed 2008 October 6, 2008.
- 15.Care W.H.O.C.C.i.P., & Care H.S.R.i.M.a.C. (1987). Unintended pregnancy and infant mortality/morbidity. In R. Amler & H. Dull (Eds.), Closing the gap: The burden of unnecessary illness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 16.McCarthy, B. (1992). The risk approach revisited: a critical review of developing country experience and its use in health planning. In: J. Liljestrand & W. G. Povey (Eds.), Maternal health care in an international perspective: Proceedings of the XXII Berzelius symposium, 1991 May 27–29 (pp. 107–124). Stockholm: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
- 17.Heaman, M., Elliott, L. J., Beaudoin, C., Baker, L., & Blanchard, J. F. (2002). Preventable feto-infant mortality: Application of a conceptual framework for perinatal health surveillance to Manitoba perinatal outcomes. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 93(Suppl 2), S27–S32.Google Scholar
- 18.Sappenfield, W. M., Peck, M. G., Gilbert, C. S., Haynatzka, V. R., & Bryant, T. (2010). 3rd perinatal periods of risk: Analytic preparation and phase 1 analytic methods for investigating feto-infant mortality. Maternal Child Health Journal. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 19.Sappenfield, W. M., Peck, M. G., Gilbert, C. S., Haynatzka, V. R., & Bryant, T. (2010). 3rd perinatal periods of risk: Phase 2 analytic methods for further investigating feto-infant mortality. Maternal Child Health Journal. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 21.NACCHO. (2001). Mobilizing for action through planning and partnerships (MAPP). www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/MAPP/index.cfm. Accessed 2008 October 6, 2008.
- 22.Peoples-Sheps, M. D., Farelm, A., & Rogers, M. M. (2001). Assessment of health status problems. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
- 23.Peck, M. (2008). A framework for assessing community readiness. CityMatCH at the University of Nebraska Medical Center www.citymatch.org/ppor_how.php. Accessed 2008 October 6, 2008.
- 24.Levy, B., & Sidel, V. (2006). Social injustice and public health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 25.CityMatCH. (2008). PPOR National Data Tables. CityMatCH at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. www.citymatch.org/ppor_data.php. Accessed 2008 October 6, 2008.
- 26.Kitagawa, E. M. (1955). Components of a difference between two rates. Journal of American Statistics Association, 50, 1168–1194.Google Scholar
- 27.Strobino, D. M., Misra, D. P., & Grason, H. (2004). The FIMR evaluation: Objectives, concepts, frameworks, and methods. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 8(4), 205–215.Google Scholar
- 28.ACOG. (2006). Committee opinion no. 357: Primary and preventive care: Periodic assessments. Obstetrics and gynecology, 108, 1615.Google Scholar
- 29.Johnson, K., et al. (2006). Recommendations to improve preconception health and health care—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55(RR06), 1–23.Google Scholar
- 30.Milstein, R. L., Wetterhall, S. F., & Members C.E.W.G. (1999) Framework for program evaluation in public health. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(RR11), 1–40.Google Scholar
- 31.Richmond, J. B., & Kotelchuck, M. (1983). The effect of the political process on the delivery of health services. In C. H. McGuire, R. Foley, A. Gorr, & R. W. Richards (Eds.), Handbook of health professions education (pp. 386–404). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- 32.Mathews, T. J., & Keppel, K. G. (2005). Racial/ethnic disparities in infant mortality—United States, 1995–2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(22), 553–556.Google Scholar
- 35.Wise, P. H. (2003). The anatomy of a disparity in infant mortality. Annual Review of Public Health, 24, 341–362.Google Scholar