18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Antenatal care packages with reduced visits and perinatal mortality: a secondary analysis of the WHO antenatal care trial - Comentary: routine antenatal visits for healthy pregnant women do make a difference

      research-article
      1 , , 2
      Reproductive Health
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The practice and timing of routine antenatal visits for healthy pregnant women, introduced arbitrarily and without evidence of effectiveness, have become entrenched in obstetric practice over the last century. In 2001 the large, cluster randomized WHO Antenatal Care Trial concluded that a goal-orientated package of antenatal care with reduced visits seemed not to affect maternal and perinatal outcomes. The reduced visit package has been implemented in several countries. The current re-analysis finds that the significantly increased perinatal mortality which occurred in the reduced visit package persists after adjustment for potential confounding factors. The WHO Antenatal Care Trial provided the first evidence from a randomized trial that the traditional high frequency of routine visits in the third trimester may well reduce perinatal mortality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care.

          We undertook a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared the standard model of antenatal care with a new model that emphasises actions known to be effective in improving maternal or neonatal outcomes and has fewer clinic visits. Clinics in Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand were randomly allocated to provide either the new model (27 clinics) or the standard model currently in use (26 clinics). All women presenting for antenatal care at these clinics over an average of 18 months were enrolled. Women enrolled in clinics offering the new model were classified on the basis of history of obstetric and clinical conditions. Those who did not require further specific assessment or treatment were offered the basic component of the new model, and those deemed at higher risk received the usual care for their conditions; however, all were included in the new-model group for the analyses, which were by intention to treat. The primary outcomes were low birthweight (<2500 g), pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, severe postpartum anaemia (<90 g/L haemoglobin), and treated urinary-tract infection. There was an assessment of quality of care and an economic evaluation. Women attending clinics assigned the new model (n=12568) had a median of five visits compared with eight within the standard model (n=11958). More women in the new model than in the standard model were referred to higher levels of care (13.4% vs 7.3%), but rates of hospital admission, diagnosis, and length of stay were similar. The groups had similar rates of low birthweight (new model 7.68% vs standard model 7.14%; stratified rate difference 0.96 [95% CI -0.01 to 1.92]), postpartum anaemia (7.59% vs 8.67%; 0.32), and urinary-tract infection (5.95% vs 7.41%; -0.42 [-1.65 to 0.80]). For pre-eclampsia/eclampsia the rate was slightly higher in the new model (1.69% vs 1.38%; 0.21 [-0.25 to 0.67]). Adjustment by several confounding variables did not modify this pattern. There were negligible differences between groups for several secondary outcomes. Women and providers in both groups were, in general, satisfied with the care received, although some women assigned the new model expressed concern about the timing of visits. There was no cost increase, and in some settings the new model decreased cost. Provision of routine antenatal care by the new model seems not to affect maternal and perinatal outcomes. It could be implemented without major resistance from women and providers and may reduce cost.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the role and effectiveness of prenatal care: history, challenges, and directions for future research.

            Despite the widespread use of prenatal care, the evidence for its effectiveness remains equivocal and its primary purpose and effects continue to be a subject of debate. To provide some perspective on why the effectiveness and organization of prenatal care continue to be debated, the authors (a) briefly review the history of the development of prenatal care in the US; (b) attempt to conceptually define prenatal care in terms of its utilization, content, and quality; and, (c) highlight some of the research controversies and challenges facing investigators and advocates who seek to establish the value of prenatal care. In addition, the authors recommend directions for future research to address persistent questions regarding the function, structure, and significance of prenatal care in improving US perinatal outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              From research to practice: the example of antenatal care in Thailand

              The rationale for providing antenatal care is to screen predominantly healthy pregnant women to detect early signs of, or risk factors for, abnormal conditions or diseases and to follow this detection with effective and timely intervention. The recommended antenatal care programme in most developing countries is often the same as the programmes used in developed countries. However, in developing countries there is wide variation in the proportion of women who receive antenatal care. The WHO randomized trial of antenatal care and the WHO systematic review indicated that a model of care that provided fewer antenatal visits could be introduced into clinical practice without causing adverse consequences to the woman or the fetus. This new model of antenatal care is being implemented in Thailand. Action has been required at all levels of the health-care system, from consumers through to health professionals, the Ministry of Public Health and international organizations. The Thai experience is a good example of moving research findings into practice, and it should be replicated elsewhere to effectively manage other health problems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Reprod Health
                Reprod Health
                Reproductive Health
                BioMed Central
                1742-4755
                2013
                12 April 2013
                : 10
                : 20
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Effective Care Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand/Fort Hare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, Eastern Cape, South Africa
                [2 ]Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                Article
                1742-4755-10-20
                10.1186/1742-4755-10-20
                3639148
                23577750
                3d71fadd-41d8-45f0-8cdd-ea5b36ccfb6e
                Copyright ©2013 Hofmeyr and Hodnett; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 March 2013
                : 1 March 2013
                Categories
                Commentary

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                Obstetrics & Gynecology

                Comments

                Comment on this article