34
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

      research-article

      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

          Background

          In 2001, the WHO Antenatal Care Trial (WHOACT) concluded that an antenatal care package of evidence-based screening, therapeutic interventions and education across four antenatal visits for low-risk women was not inferior to standard antenatal care and may reduce cost. However, an updated Cochrane review in 2010 identified an increased risk of perinatal mortality of borderline statistical significance in three cluster-randomized trials (including the WHOACT) in developing countries. We conducted a secondary analysis of the WHOACT data to determine the relationship between the reduced visits, goal-oriented antenatal care package and perinatal mortality.

          Methods

          Exploratory analyses were conducted to assess the effect of baseline risk and timing of perinatal death. Women were stratified by baseline risk to assess differences between intervention and control groups. We used linear modeling and Poisson regression to determine the relative risk of fetal death, neonatal death and perinatal mortality by gestational age.

          Results

          12,568 women attended the 27 intervention clinics and 11,958 women attended the 26 control clinics. 6,160 women were high risk and 18,365 women were low risk. There were 161 fetal deaths (1.4%) in the intervention group compared to 119 fetal deaths in the control group (1.1%) with an increased overall adjusted relative risk of fetal death (Adjusted RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03, 1.58). This was attributable to an increased relative risk of fetal death between 32 and 36 weeks of gestation (Adjusted RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.42, 3.53) which was statistically significant for high and low risk groups.

          Conclusion

          It is plausible the increased risk of fetal death between 32 and 36 weeks gestation could be due to reduced number of visits, however heterogeneity in study populations or differences in quality of care and timing of visits could also be playing a role. Monitoring maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes when implementing antenatal care protocols is essential. Implementing reduced visit antenatal care packages demands careful monitoring of maternal and perinatal outcomes, especially fetal death.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • 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

            How effective is antenatal care in preventing maternal mortality and serious morbidity? An overview of the evidence.

            This is an overview of evidence of the effectiveness of antenatal care in relation to maternal mortality and serious morbidity, focused in particular on developing countries. It concentrates on the major causes of maternal mortality, and traces their antecedent morbidities and risk factors in pregnancy. It also includes interventions aimed at preventing, detecting or treating any stage along this pathway during pregnancy. This is an updated and expanded version of a review first published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1992. The scientific evidence from randomised controlled trials and other types of intervention or observational study on the effectiveness of these interventions is reviewed critically. The sources and quality of available data, and possible biases in their collection or interpretation are considered. As in other areas of maternal health, good-quality evidence is scarce and, just as in many aspects of health care generally, there are interventions in current practice that have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. A table of antenatal interventions of proven effectiveness in conditions that can lead to maternal mortality or serious morbidity is presented. Interventions for which there is some promising evidence, short of proof, of effectiveness are explored, and the outstanding questions formulated. These are presented in a series of tables with suggestions about the types of study needed to answer them.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomised controlled trial of a reduced-visits programme of antenatal care in Harare, Zimbabwe.

              Many of the individual components of antenatal care have been studied in randomised controlled trials, but few studies have compared whole programmes of antenatal care. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that a new programme of antenatal care with fewer goal-oriented visits would give an equivalent or better result in the outcomes associated with pregnancy and delivery. In a randomised clinical trial in Harare, Zimbabwe, we compared a new programme of antenatal care with the standard programme. The new programme consisted of fewer but more objectively oriented visits and fewer procedures per visit. Seven primary care clinics were randomly assigned to the two programmes-three to the standard programme and four to the new programme. Over a 2-year period, 15,994 women were recruited into the study at the time they booked antenatal care. 97% of the women were followed up, 9,394 who had followed the new programme, and 6,138 from clinics with the standard one. Women allocated to the new programme made, as planned, fewer visits than those in the standard programme (median 4 vs 6 visits, respectively). The proportion of antenatal referrals was also lower (13.6 vs 15.3%; odds ratio 0.87 [95% CI 0.79-0.95]) because of significantly fewer referrals for pregnancy-induced hypertension (2.5 vs 3.8%; 0.66 [0.55-0.79]). Nevertheless, there were significantly fewer labour referrals for severe hypertension or eclampsia (2.1 vs 2.6%; 0.81 [0.66-1.00]). The risk for preterm (< 37 weeks) delivery was significantly lower for women on the new programme (10.1 vs 11.5%; 0.86 [0.78-0.96]). There were no other significant differences between the programmes in other major indices of pregnancy outcome, including antenatal referrals for other causes, labour referrals, obstetric interventions, low birthweight, and perinatal and maternal mortality and morbidity. An antenatal care programme with fewer more objectively oriented visits can be introduced without adverse effects on the main intermediate outcome pregnancy variables.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Reprod Health
                Reprod Health
                Reproductive Health
                BioMed Central
                1742-4755
                2013
                12 April 2013
                : 10
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009, Australia
                [2 ]UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva, CH-1211, Switzerland
                [3 ]Department of Women’s Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool 8, UK
                [4 ]Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Moreno 878, Rosario, 2000, Argentina
                [5 ]King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Jeddah, 21423, Saudi Arabia
                [6 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand
                [7 ]Statistika Consultoria, São Paulo, Brazil, Divonne-les-Bains, France
                [8 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital, Sagamu, P.M.B. 2001, Nigeria
                Article
                1742-4755-10-19
                10.1186/1742-4755-10-19
                3637102
                23577700
                5e313f54-1995-4cca-bc17-b23363d2a876
                Copyright © 2013 Vogel et al.; 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
                : 30 January 2013
                : 18 February 2013
                Categories
                Research

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                antenatal care,perinatal mortality,who,developing country
                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                antenatal care, perinatal mortality, who, developing country

                Comments

                Comment on this article