Abstract
Group prenatal care may be a promising alternative to traditional one-on-one care. However, research on its effects has produced inconsistent findings and raises questions about effectiveness across different patient populations. This pilot study evaluated the effects of March of Dimes Supportive Pregnancy Care (SPC) on maternal health and behavior across six diverse healthcare sites. Analyses of a propensity score-matched medical record dataset aggregated across sites (N = 1950) indicated significant unfavorable effects on gestational age at delivery (b = − 0.34, p < .05), birthweight (b = − 94.55, p < .05), and low birthweight (OR = 1.10, p < .05). However, these findings did not hold up to sensitivity analyses. Significant favorable aggregate effects were observed for postpartum visit attendance (OR = 1.68; 95% CI [1.12, 2.53]), breastfeeding at delivery (OR = 1.84; 95% CI [1.20, 2.83]), and breastfeeding at follow-up (OR = 3.82; 95% CI [1.46, 9.97]). These findings remained largely consistent across sensitivity analyses. In addition to these aggregate effects, significant site-level effects were observed, but only for two sites. Both were racially homogenous, serving White and African American patient populations, respectively. Future research should determine whether these effects can be generalized to women receiving care in racially heterogeneous settings or whether they are limited to White and African American women receiving care in racially homogenous settings. Efforts to roll out SPC should be accompanied by a continual accrual of research assessing the effects of this program on maternal and infant health across a range of geographic settings and patient profiles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
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, 306–316.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2018). ACOG committee opinion number 731. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 131, e104–e108.
Bates D, Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R., Signmann, H., Dai, B., & Grothendieck, G. (2015). Package ‘lme4’. Convergence, 12.
Carter, E. B., Temming, L. A., Akin, J., Fowler, S., Macones, G. A., Colditz, G. A., & Tuuli, M. G. (2016). Group prenatal care compared with traditional prenatal care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 128, 551–561.
Catling, C. J., Medley, N., Foureur, M., Ryan, C., Leap, N., Teate, A. & Homer, C. S. E. (2015). Group versus conventional antenatal care for women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Ho, D. E., Kosuke, I., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1–28.
Honaker, J., King, G., & Blackwell, M. (2011). Amelia II: A program for missing data. Journal of Statistical Software, 45, 1–47.
Ickovics, J. R., Kershaw, T. S., Westdahl, C., Magriples, U., Massey, Z., Reynolds, H., & Rising, S. S. (2007). Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110, 330–339.
Ickovics, J. R., Lewis, J., Kershaw, T., & Magriples, U. (2017). Group prenatal care compared with traditional prenatal care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 129, 203–204.
Klima, C., Norr, K., Vonderheid, S., & Handler, A. (2009). Introduction of CenteringPregnancy in a public health clinic. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 54, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.05.008.
Kominiarek, M. A., Lewkowitz, A. K., Carter, E., Fowler, S. A., & Simon, M. (2019). Gestational weight gain and group prenatal care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19, 18–33.
Lee, B. K., Lessler, J., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS ONE, 6, e18174.
March of Dimes. (2017). Pregnancy loves company -How Supportive Pregnancy Care benefits moms & babies. https://medium.com/@marchofdimesfnd/pregnancy-loves-company-how-supportive-pregnancy-care-benefits-moms-babies-894b7c02ea47. Published June 8, 2017. Accessed 28 Jan 2019.
March of Dimes. (2019). Supportive Pregnancy Care implementation. https://www.marchofdimes.org/supportive-pregnancy-care/supportive-pregnancy-care-implementation.aspx. Accessed 17 Aug 2019.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rassen, J. A., Shelat, A. A., Myers, J., Glynn, R. J., Rothman, K. J., & Schneeweiss, S. (2012). One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 21, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3263.
Rising, S. S. (1998). CenteringPregnancy: An interdisciplinary model of empowerment. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 43, 46–54.
Robinson, K., Garnier-Villarreal, M., & Hanson, L. (2018). Effectiveness of CenteringPregnancy on breastfeeding initiation among African Americans: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 32, 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0000000000000307.
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, 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35182-9.
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018082.
Spybrook, J., Bloom, H., Congdon, R., Hill, C., Martinez, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2011). Optimal design plus empirical evidence: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” software version 3.0. New York: William T Grant Foundation.
Walker, D. S., & Worrell, R. (2008). Promoting healthy pregnancies through perinatal groups: A comparison of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care and childbirth education classes. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 17, 27–34.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Emily Tanner-Smith for her methodological guidance during the early phases of this study and Mark W. Lipsey for his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by March of Dimes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research Involving Human Participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board, 170515) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Disclaimer
This study was funded by March of Dimes. The opinions expressed by the study authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of March of Dimes or of March of Dimes funders.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 32 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kettrey, H.H., Steinka-Fry, K.T. Effects of March of Dimes Supportive Pregnancy Care on Maternal and Infant Health Across Diverse Patient Populations: a Quasi-Experimental Multi-Site Pilot Study. Prev Sci 21, 293–307 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01083-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01083-5