Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 801–809

The Effects of CenteringPregnancy Group Prenatal Care on Gestational Age, Birth Weight, and Fetal Demise

  • Emily E. Tanner-Smith
  • Katarzyna T. Steinka-Fry
  • Mark W. Lipsey


We examined the effects of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care versus individually delivered prenatal care on gestational age, birth weight, and fetal demise. We conducted a retrospective chart review and used propensity score matching to form a sample of 6,155 women receiving prenatal care delivered in a group or individual format at five sites in Tennessee. Compared to the matched group of women receiving prenatal care in an individual format, women in CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care had longer weeks of gestation (b = .35, 95 % CI [.29, .41]), higher birth weight in grams (b = 28.6, 95 % CI [4.8, 52.3]), lower odds of very low birth weight (OR = .21, 95 % CI [.06, .70]), and lower odds of fetal demise (OR = .12, 95 % CI [.02, .92]). Results indicated no evidence of differences in the odds of preterm birth or low birth weight for participants in group versus individual prenatal care. CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care had statistically and clinically significant beneficial effects on very low birth weight and fetal demise outcomes relative to traditional individually delivered prenatal care. Group prenatal care had statistically significant beneficial effects on gestational age and birth weight, although the effects were relatively small in clinical magnitude.


Birth weight CenteringPregnancy Fetal demise Gestational age 


  1. 1.
    2011 KIDS COUNT data book: State profiles of child well-being. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Accessed 01 March 2011 from:
  2. 2.
    Alexander, G. R., & Kotelchuck, M. (2001). Assessing the role and effectiveness of prenatal care: History, challenges, and directions for future research. Public Health Reports, 116(4), 306–316.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, J., Gamble, J., Stapleton, H., et al. (2012). Does the way maternity care is provided affect maternal and neonatal outcomes for young women? A review of the research literature. Women Birth, 25(2), S20–S21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rising, S. S. (1998). CenteringPregnancy: An interdisciplinary model of empowerment. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 43(1), 46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ickovics, J. R., Kershaw, T. S., Westdahl, C., et al. (2007). Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110(2), 330–339.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kennedy, H. P., Farrell, T., Paden, R., et al. (2011). A randomized clinical trial of group prenatal care in two military settings. Military Medicine, 176(10), 1169–1177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ickovics, J. R., Reed, E., Magriples, U., et al. (2011). Effects of group prenatal care on psychosocial risk in pregnancy: Results from a randomised controlled trial. Psychology & Health, 26(2), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bloom, C. K. (2005). Use of the CenteringPregnancy program in a school-based clinic: A pilot study. Clinical Excellence for Nurse Practitioners, 9(4), 213–218.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grady, M. A., & Bloom, K. C. (2004). Pregnancy outcomes of adolescents enrolled in a CenteringPregnancy program. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 49(5), 412–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ickovics, J. R., Kershaw, T. S., Westdahl, C., et al. (2003). Group prenatal care and preterm birth weight: Results from a matched cohort study at public clinics. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 102(5), 1051–1057.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klima, C., Norr, K., Vonderheid, S., et al. (2009). Introduction of CenteringPregnancy in a public health clinic. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 54(1), 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robertson, B., Aycock, D. M., & Darnell, L. A. (2009). Comparison of CenteringPregnancy to traditional care in Hispanic mothers. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 13(3), 407–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picklesimer, A. H., Billings, D., Hale, N., et al. (2012). The effect of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on preterm birth in a low-income population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 206(5), 415.e1–415.e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tandon, S. D., Colon, L., Vega, P., et al. (2012). Birth outcomes associated with receipt of group prenatal care among low-income Hispanic women. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 57(5), 476–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruiz-Mirazo, E., Lopez-Yarto, M., & McDonald, S. D. (2012). Group prenatal care versus individual prenatal care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 34(3), 223–229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tanner-Smith, E. E., Steinka-Fry, K. T., & Lipsey, M. W. (2012). A multi-site evaluation of the CenteringPregnancy ® programs in Tennessee. Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University.
  17. 17.
    Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., et al. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubin, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3–4), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steiner, P. M., & Cook, D. (2012). Matching and propensity scores. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hirano, K., & Imbens, G. W. (2001). Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: An application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3–4), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Covariance adjustment in randomized experiments and observational studies. Statistical Science, 17(3), 286–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sheeder, J., Yorga, K. W., & Kabir-Greher, K. (2012). A review of prenatal group care literature: The need for a structured theoretical framework and systematic evaluation. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16, 177–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59(8), 676–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(Suppl), S54–S66.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baldwin, K. A. (2006). Comparison of selected outcomes of CenteringPregnancy versus traditional prenatal care. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 51(4), 266–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trudnak, T. (2011). A comparison of Latina women in CenteringPregnancy and individual prenatal care [dissertation]. Tampa: University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mooney, S. E., Russell, M. A., Prairie, B., et al. (2008). Group prenatal care: An analysis of cost. Journal of Health Care Finance, 34(4), 31–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily E. Tanner-Smith
    • 1
  • Katarzyna T. Steinka-Fry
    • 1
  • Mark W. Lipsey
    • 1
  1. 1.Peabody Research InstituteVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations