The Influence of Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Phase of Labor at Hospital Admission

Ellen Tilden, Cathy Emeis, Aaron Caughey, Sarah R. Weinstein, Sarah B. Futernick, Christopher Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Group prenatal care, an alternate model of prenatal care delivery, has been associated with various improved perinatal outcomes in comparison to standard, individual prenatal care. One important maternity care process measure that has not been explored among women who receive group prenatal care versus standard prenatal care is the phase of labor (latent vs active) at hospital admission. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 150 women who selected group prenatal care with certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) versus 225 women who chose standard prenatal care with CNMs. Analyses performed included descriptive statistics to compare groups and multivariate regression to evaluate the contribution of key covariates potentially influencing outcomes. Propensity scores were calculated and included in regression models. Results: Women within this sample who received group prenatal care were more likely to be in active labor (≥ 4 cm of cervical dilatation) at hospital admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.99; P =.049) and were admitted to the hospital with significantly greater cervical dilatation (mean [standard deviation, SD] 5.7 [2.5] cm vs. 5.1 [2.3] cm, P =.005) compared with women who received standard prenatal care, controlling for potential confounding variables and propensity for group versus individual care selection. Discussion: Group prenatal care may be an effective and safe intervention for decreasing latent labor hospital admission among low-risk women. Neither group prenatal care nor active labor hospital admission was associated with increased morbidity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)427-434
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Midwifery and Women's Health
Volume61
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016

Fingerprint

Prenatal Care
Nurse Midwives
First Labor Stage
Propensity Score
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)
Standard of Care
Case-Control Studies
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Morbidity

Keywords

  • Antepartum care
  • CenteringPregnancy/group care
  • cesarean birth
  • first stage of labor
  • intrapartum care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Maternity and Midwifery

Cite this

The Influence of Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Phase of Labor at Hospital Admission. / Tilden, Ellen; Emeis, Cathy; Caughey, Aaron; Weinstein, Sarah R.; Futernick, Sarah B.; Lee, Christopher.

In: Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, Vol. 61, No. 4, 01.07.2016, p. 427-434.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0075cf8577f746a3a1ed0cf0efc4a3c2,
title = "The Influence of Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Phase of Labor at Hospital Admission",
abstract = "Introduction: Group prenatal care, an alternate model of prenatal care delivery, has been associated with various improved perinatal outcomes in comparison to standard, individual prenatal care. One important maternity care process measure that has not been explored among women who receive group prenatal care versus standard prenatal care is the phase of labor (latent vs active) at hospital admission. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 150 women who selected group prenatal care with certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) versus 225 women who chose standard prenatal care with CNMs. Analyses performed included descriptive statistics to compare groups and multivariate regression to evaluate the contribution of key covariates potentially influencing outcomes. Propensity scores were calculated and included in regression models. Results: Women within this sample who received group prenatal care were more likely to be in active labor (≥ 4 cm of cervical dilatation) at hospital admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.99; P =.049) and were admitted to the hospital with significantly greater cervical dilatation (mean [standard deviation, SD] 5.7 [2.5] cm vs. 5.1 [2.3] cm, P =.005) compared with women who received standard prenatal care, controlling for potential confounding variables and propensity for group versus individual care selection. Discussion: Group prenatal care may be an effective and safe intervention for decreasing latent labor hospital admission among low-risk women. Neither group prenatal care nor active labor hospital admission was associated with increased morbidity.",
keywords = "Antepartum care, CenteringPregnancy/group care, cesarean birth, first stage of labor, intrapartum care",
author = "Ellen Tilden and Cathy Emeis and Aaron Caughey and Weinstein, {Sarah R.} and Futernick, {Sarah B.} and Christopher Lee",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jmwh.12437",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "427--434",
journal = "Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health",
issn = "1526-9523",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Influence of Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Phase of Labor at Hospital Admission

AU - Tilden, Ellen

AU - Emeis, Cathy

AU - Caughey, Aaron

AU - Weinstein, Sarah R.

AU - Futernick, Sarah B.

AU - Lee, Christopher

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Introduction: Group prenatal care, an alternate model of prenatal care delivery, has been associated with various improved perinatal outcomes in comparison to standard, individual prenatal care. One important maternity care process measure that has not been explored among women who receive group prenatal care versus standard prenatal care is the phase of labor (latent vs active) at hospital admission. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 150 women who selected group prenatal care with certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) versus 225 women who chose standard prenatal care with CNMs. Analyses performed included descriptive statistics to compare groups and multivariate regression to evaluate the contribution of key covariates potentially influencing outcomes. Propensity scores were calculated and included in regression models. Results: Women within this sample who received group prenatal care were more likely to be in active labor (≥ 4 cm of cervical dilatation) at hospital admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.99; P =.049) and were admitted to the hospital with significantly greater cervical dilatation (mean [standard deviation, SD] 5.7 [2.5] cm vs. 5.1 [2.3] cm, P =.005) compared with women who received standard prenatal care, controlling for potential confounding variables and propensity for group versus individual care selection. Discussion: Group prenatal care may be an effective and safe intervention for decreasing latent labor hospital admission among low-risk women. Neither group prenatal care nor active labor hospital admission was associated with increased morbidity.

AB - Introduction: Group prenatal care, an alternate model of prenatal care delivery, has been associated with various improved perinatal outcomes in comparison to standard, individual prenatal care. One important maternity care process measure that has not been explored among women who receive group prenatal care versus standard prenatal care is the phase of labor (latent vs active) at hospital admission. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 150 women who selected group prenatal care with certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) versus 225 women who chose standard prenatal care with CNMs. Analyses performed included descriptive statistics to compare groups and multivariate regression to evaluate the contribution of key covariates potentially influencing outcomes. Propensity scores were calculated and included in regression models. Results: Women within this sample who received group prenatal care were more likely to be in active labor (≥ 4 cm of cervical dilatation) at hospital admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.99; P =.049) and were admitted to the hospital with significantly greater cervical dilatation (mean [standard deviation, SD] 5.7 [2.5] cm vs. 5.1 [2.3] cm, P =.005) compared with women who received standard prenatal care, controlling for potential confounding variables and propensity for group versus individual care selection. Discussion: Group prenatal care may be an effective and safe intervention for decreasing latent labor hospital admission among low-risk women. Neither group prenatal care nor active labor hospital admission was associated with increased morbidity.

KW - Antepartum care

KW - CenteringPregnancy/group care

KW - cesarean birth

KW - first stage of labor

KW - intrapartum care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979896158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979896158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jmwh.12437

DO - 10.1111/jmwh.12437

M3 - Article

C2 - 27061231

AN - SCOPUS:84979896158

VL - 61

SP - 427

EP - 434

JO - Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health

JF - Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health

SN - 1526-9523

IS - 4

ER -