Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Group versus traditional prenatal care in low-risk women delivering at term: a retrospective cohort study

Journal of Perinatology volume 37, pages 769–771 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

Group prenatal care (GC) models are receiving increasing attention as a means of preventing preterm birth; yet, there are limited data on whether group care improves perinatal outcomes in women who deliver at term. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our institutional experience with GC over the past decade and test the hypothesis that GC, compared with traditional individual care (TC), improves perinatal outcomes in women who deliver at term.

Study Design:

We performed a retrospective cohort study of women delivering at term who participated in GC compared with TC. A group of 207 GC patients who delivered at term from 2004 to 2014 were matched in a 1:2 ratio to 414 patients with term singleton pregnancies who delivered at our institution during the same period by delivery year, maternal age, race and insurance status. The primary outcome was low birth weight (<2500 g). Secondary outcomes included early term birth (37.0 to 38 6/7 weeks), 5 min APGAR score <7, special care nursery admission, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, neonatal demise, cesarean section and number of prenatal visits. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using univariable statistics.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two matched groups. GC was associated with a significant reduction in low birth weight infants compared with TC (11.1% vs 19.6%; relative risk (RR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.87). Patients in GC were significantly less likely than controls to require cesarean delivery, have low 5 min APGAR scores and need higher-level neonatal care (NICU: 1.5% vs 6.5%; RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.72). There were no significant differences in rates of early term birth and neonatal demise.

Conclusions:

Low-risk women participating in GC and delivering at term had a lower risk of low birth weight and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with women in TC. This suggests GC is a promising alternative to individual prenatal care to improve perinatal outcomes in addition to preterm birth.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krans EE, Davis MM . Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns: implications for prenatal care delivery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 26 (6): 511–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rising SS . Centering pregnancy: an interdisciplinary model of empowerment. J Nurse Midwifery 1998; 43 (1): 46–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ickovics JR, Kershaw TS, Westdahl C, Magriples U, Massey Z, Reynolds H et al. Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110 (2 I): 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Picklesimer AH, Billings D, Hale N, Blackhurst D, Covington-Kolb S . The effect of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on preterm birth in a low-income population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (5): 415e1–415e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tanner-Smith EE, Steinka-Fry KT, Lipsey MW . The effects of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on gestational age, birth weight, and fetal demise. Matern Child Health J 2014; 18 (4): 801–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Klima C, Norr K, Vonderheid S, Handler A . Introduction of CenteringPregnancy in a public health clinic. J Midwifery Women's Health 2009; 54 (1): 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shakespear K, Waite PJ, Gast J . A comparison of health behaviors of women in centering pregnancy and traditional prenatal care. Maternal Child Health J 2010; 14 (2): 202–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Robertson B, Aycock DM, Darnell LA . Comparison of centering pregnancy to traditional care in Hispanic mothers. Maternal Child Health J 2009; 13 (3): 407–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carter EB, Temming LA, Akin J, Fowler S, Macones GA, Colditz GA et al. Group prenatal care compared with traditional prenatal care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (3): 551–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pearce N . Analysis of matched case-control studies. BMJ 2016; 352: i969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ford K, Weglicki L, Kershaw T, Schram C, Hoyer PJ, Jacobson ML . Effects of a prenatal care intervention for adolescent mothers on birth weight, repeat pregnancy, and educational outcomes at one year postpartum. J Perinat Educ 2002; 11 (1): 35–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ickovics JRK, Kershaw TS, Westdahl C, Rising SS, Klima C, Reynolds H et al. Group prenatal care and preterm birth weight: results from a matched cohort study at public clinics. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102 (5 Pt 1): 1051–1057.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kennedy HP, Farrell T, Paden R, Hill MS, Rima Jolivet R, Cooper BA et al. A randomized clinical trial of group prenatal care in two military settings. Mil Med 2011; 176 (10): 1169–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jafari F, Eftekhar H, Fotouhi A, Mohammad K, Hantoushzadeh S . Comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes of group versus individual prenatal care: a new experience in Iran. Health Care Women Int 2010; 31 (7): 571–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M . A United States National reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (2 I): 163–168.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rondó PHC, Ferreira RF, Nogueira F, Ribeiro MCN, Lobert H, Artes R . Maternal psychological stress and distress as predictors of low birth weight, prematurity and intrauterine growth retardation. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57 (2): 266–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Orr ST, James SA, Miller CA, Barakat B, Daikoku N, Pupkin M et al. Psychosocial stressors and low birthweight in an urban population. Am J Prev Med 1996; 12 (6): 459–466.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Borders AEB, Grobman WA, Amsden LB, Holl JL . Chronic stress and low birth weight neonates in a low-income population of women. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (2 part 1): 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heberlein EC, Picklesimer AH, Billings DL, Covington-Kolb S, Farber N, Frongillo EA . The comparative effects of group prenatal care on psychosocial outcomes. Arch Womens Ment Health 2015; 9 (2): 259–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosen MG, Merkatz IR, Hill JG . Caring for our future: a report by the expert panel on the content of prenatal care. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77 (5): 782–787.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Villar J, Bergsjo P . Scientific basis for the content of routine antenatal care. I. Philosophy, recent studies, and power to eliminate or alleviate adverse maternal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76 (1): 1–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Guidelines for Perinatal Care. American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Elk Grove Village, IL; Washington, DC, 2012. Available from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=567165.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Carter is supported by a NIH T32 training Grant (5T32HD055172-05).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA

    E B Carter, G A Macones, A G Cahill & M G Tuuli

  2. Barnes Jewish Hospital, Department of Ambulatory Services, St Louis, MO, USA

    K Barbier & R Sarabia

Authors
  1. E B Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K Barbier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R Sarabia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G A Macones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A G Cahill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M G Tuuli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E B Carter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carter, E., Barbier, K., Sarabia, R. et al. Group versus traditional prenatal care in low-risk women delivering at term: a retrospective cohort study. J Perinatol 37, 769–771 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.33

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.33

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links