What are the mechanisms of effect of group antenatal care? A systematic realist review and synthesis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the benefits of group models of antenatal care. Although clinical reviews exist, there have been few reviews that focus on the mechanisms of effect of this model. METHODS: We conducted a realist review using a systematic approach incorporating all data types (including non-research and audiovisual media), with synthesis along Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome (CIMO) configurations. RESULTS: A wide range of sources were identified, yielding 100 relevant sources in total (89 written and 11 audiovisual). Overall, there was no clear pattern of 'what works for whom, in what circumstances' although some studies have identified clinical benefits for those with more vulnerability or who are typically underserved by standard care. Findings revealed six interlinking mechanisms, including: social support, peer learning, active participation in health, health education and satisfaction or engagement with care. A further, relatively under-developed theory related to impact on professional practice. An overarching mechanism of empowerment featured across most studies but there was variation in how this was collectively or individually conceptualised and applied. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanisms of effect are amplified in contexts where inequalities in access and delivery of care exist, but poor reporting of populations and contexts limited fuller exploration. We recommend future studies provide detailed descriptions of the population groups involved and that they give full consideration to theoretical underpinnings and contextual factors. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this realist review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42016036768).

National assessment of obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine residents' experiences with CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine family medicine (FM) and obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) residents' experiences with CenteringPregnancy (CP) group prenatal care (GPNC) as a correlate to perceived likelihood of implementing CP in future practice, as well as knowledge, level of support, and perceived barriers to implementation. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study annually from 2017 to 2019 with FM and OB/GYN residents from residency programs in the United States licensed to operate CP. We applied adjusted logistic regression models to identify predictors of intentions to engage with CP in future practice. RESULTS: Of 212 FM and 176 OB/GYN residents included in analysis, 67.01% of respondents intended to participate as a facilitator in CP in future practice and 51.80% of respondents were willing to talk to decision makers about establishing CP. Both FM and OB/GYN residents who spent more than 15 h engaged with CP and who expressed support towards CP were more likely to participate as a facilitator. FM residents who received residency-based training on CP and who were more familiar with CP reported higher intention to participate as a facilitator, while OB/GYN residents who had higher levels of engagement with CP were more likely to report an intention to participate as a facilitator. CONCLUSION: Engagement with and support towards CP during residency are key factors in residents' intention to practice CP in the future. To encourage future adoption of CP among residents, consider maximizing resident engagement with the model in hours of exposure and level of engagement, including hosting residency-based trainings on CP for FM residents.

The effects of CenteringPregnancy on maternal and infant health outcomes: a moderation analysis.

BACKGROUND: CenteringPregnancy (CP) has been expected to produce beneficial outcomes for women and their infants. However, previous studies paid little attention to testing variations in CP's effects across women from different demographic groups. This study aimed to test how multiple demographic factors (obesity, race, ethnicity, marital status and socioeconomic status) moderate CP's effects on health outcomes. METHODS: This study employed a quasi-experimental design. De-identified hospital birth data were collected from 216 CP participants and 1159 non-CP participants. We estimated the average treatment effect of CP on outcome variables as a baseline. Then we estimated the average marginal effect of CP by adding each of the moderating variables in regression adjustment models. RESULTS: CP produced salutary effects among those who were obese or overweight and unmarried as well as women with lower socioeconomic status. These salutary effects were also strengthened as maternal age increased. However, CP was ineffective for Hispanic/Latinx women. CONCLUSIONS: CP produced more beneficial health outcomes for high-risk women such as obese, unmarried women and those with lower socioeconomic status. These are meaningful findings from a public health perspective.

Group vs traditional prenatal care for improving racial equity in preterm birth and low birthweight: the Centering and Racial Disparities randomized clinical trial study.

BACKGROUND: The United States has persistently high rates of preterm birth and low birthweight and is characterized by significant racial disparities in these rates. Innovative group prenatal care models, such as CenteringPregnancy, have been proposed as a potential approach to improve the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight and to reduce disparities in these pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test whether participation in group prenatal care would reduce the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight compared with individual prenatal care and whether group prenatal care would reduce the racial disparity in these rates between Black and White patients. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial among medically low-risk pregnant patients at a single study site. Eligible patients were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity and randomly allocated 1:1 between group and individual prenatal care. The primary outcomes were preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation and low birthweight of <2500 g. The primary analysis was performed according to the intent-to-treat principle. The secondary analyses were performed according to the as-treated principle using modified intent-to-treat and per-compliance approaches. The analysis of effect modification by race and ethnicity was planned. RESULTS: A total of 2350 participants were enrolled, with 1176 assigned to group prenatal care and 1174 assigned to individual prenatal care. The study population included 952 Black (40.5%), 502 Hispanic (21.4%), 863 White (36.8%), and 31 "other races or ethnicity" (1.3%) participants. Group prenatal care did not reduce the rate of preterm birth (10.4% vs 8.7%; odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.63; P=.17) or low birthweight (9.6% vs 8.9%; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.45; P=.62) compared with individual prenatal care. In subgroup analysis, greater attendance in prenatal care was associated with lower rates of preterm birth and low birthweight. This effect was most noticeable for the rates of low birthweight for Black participants in group care: intent to treat (51/409 [12.5%]), modified intent to treat (36/313 [11.5%]), and per compliance (20/240 [8.3%]). Although the rates of low birthweight were significantly higher for Black participants than White participants seen in individual care (adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.50), the difference was not significant for Black participants in group care compared with their White counterparts (adjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-3.34). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the overall rates of preterm birth or low birthweight between group and individual prenatal care. With increased participation in group prenatal care, lower rates of preterm birth and low birthweight for Black participants were observed. The role of group care models in reducing racial disparities in these birth outcomes requires further study.

CenteringPregnancy in the Netherlands: Who engages, who doesn't, and why.

BACKGROUND: CenteringPregnancy (CP), a model of group antenatal care, was implemented in 2012 in the Netherlands to improve perinatal health; CP is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes. However, motivating women to participate in CP can be difficult. As such, we explored the characteristics associated with CP uptake and attendance and then investigated whether participation differs between health care facilities. In addition, we examined the reasons why women may decline participation and the reasons for higher or lower attendance rates. METHODS: Data from a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial were used. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine associations among women's health behavior, sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics, health care facilities, and participation and attendance in CP. RESULTS: A total of 2562 women were included in the study, and the average participation rate was 31.6% per health care facility (range of 10%-53%). Nulliparous women, women <26 years old or >30 years old, and women reporting average or high levels of stress were more likely to participate in CP. Participation was less likely for women who had stopped smoking before prenatal intake, or who scored below average on lifestyle/pregnancy knowledge. For those participating in CP, 87% attended seven or more out of the 10 sessions, and no significant differences were found in women's characteristics when compared for higher or lower attendance rates. After the initial uptake, group attendance rates remained high. CONCLUSION: A more comprehensive understanding of the variation in participation rate between health care facilities is required, in order to develop effective strategies to improve the recruitment of women, especially those with less knowledge and understanding of health issues and smoking habits.

Evaluating process fidelity during the implementation of Group Antenatal Care in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a group antenatal care (G-ANC) model that has proven beneficial for mothers and their newborns. We conducted a feasibility study beginning in 2016 as part of the Mexican effort to implement G-ANC locally. This study reports on fidelity to the essential elements of CP during its implementation in Mexico. METHODS: We collected prospective data using a standardized checklist at four primary-care centers that implemented our adapted G-ANC model. We performed a descriptive analysis of fidelity to 28 processes per G-ANC session (71 sessions made up of 10 groups and 129 women across 4 health centers). We calculated fidelity to each process as a proportion with 95% confidence intervals. We present overall results and stratified by health center and by facilitation team. RESULTS: Overall fidelity to the G-ANC intervention was 82%, with variability by health center (78-88%). The elements with the highest fidelity were having space for activities such as checking vital signs, conversation in a circle, and medical check-ups (100% each) and the element with the lowest fidelity was using music to enhance privacy (27.3%). Fidelity was not significantly different by center. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests good model fidelity during the implementation of G-ANC in Mexico. Our findings also contribute useful information about where to focus efforts in the future to maintain and improve G-ANC model fidelity.

Measuring fidelity, feasibility, costs: an implementation evaluation of a cluster-controlled trial of group antenatal care in rural Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Access to high-quality antenatal care services has been shown to be beneficial for maternal and child health. In 2016, the WHO published evidence-based recommendations for antenatal care that aim to improve utilization, quality of care, and the patient experience. Prior research in Nepal has shown that a lack of social support, birth planning, and resources are barriers to accessing services in rural communities. The success of CenteringPregnancy and participatory action women's groups suggests that group care models may both improve access to care and the quality of care delivered through women's empowerment and the creation of social networks. We present a group antenatal care model in rural Nepal, designed and implemented by the healthcare delivery organization Nyaya Health Nepal, as well as an assessment of implementation outcomes. METHODS: The study was conducted at Bayalata Hospital in Achham, Nepal, via a public private partnership between the Nepali non-profit, Nyaya Health Nepal, and the Ministry of Health and Population, with financial and technical assistance from the American non-profit, Possible. We implemented group antenatal care as a prospective non-randomized cluster-controlled, type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation study in six village clusters. The implementation approach allows for iterative improvement in design, making changes to improve the quality of the intervention. Assessments of implementation process and model fidelity were undertaken using a mobile checklist completed by nurse supervisors, and observation forms completed by program leadership. We evaluated data quarterly using descriptive statistics to identify trends. Qualitative interviews and team communications were analyzed through immersion crystallization to identify major themes that evolved during the implementation process. RESULTS: A total of 141 group antenatal sessions were run during the study period. This paper reports on implementation results, whereas we analyze and present patient-level effectiveness outcomes in a complementary paper in this journal. There was high process fidelity to the model, with 85.7% (95% CI 77.1-91.5%) of visits completing all process elements, and high content fidelity, with all village clusters meeting the minimum target frequency for 80% of topics. The annual per capita cost for group antenatal care was 0.50 USD. Qualitative analysis revealed the compromise of stable gestation-matched composition of the group members in order to make the intervention feasible. Major adaptations were made in training, documentation, feedback and logistics. CONCLUSION: Group antenatal care provided in collaboration with local government clinics has the potential to provide accessible and high quality antenatal care to women in rural Nepal. The intervention is a feasible and affordable alternative to individual antenatal care. Our experience has shown that adaptation from prior models was important for the program to be successful in the local context within the national healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02330887, registered 01/05/2015, retroactively registered.

Increased Tdap and Influenza Vaccination Acquisition Among Patients Participating in Group Prenatal Care.

CenteringPregnancy, an alternative to traditional prenatal care, offers additional time between clinicians and patients with the goal of increasing knowledge, understanding, and autonomy in pregnant participants. We investigated whether these women would be more likely to receive recommended Tdap and influenza vaccinations relative to others who received one-on-one traditional prenatal care. Our study employed a retrospective chart review of all women who participated in CenteringPregnancy group care compared to a group of matched women who received only traditional prenatal care at a large, quaternary care referral academic center. We extracted demographic and clinical characteristics from charts that included maternal age during pregnancy care and parity. Outcome variables of interest were influenza and Tdap vaccination status. Compared with traditional obstetrical care patients, women who participated in CenteringPregnancy were 1.7-2.7 times more likely to obtain the Tdap and influenza vaccines. These findings may be attributable to the increased opportunity for patient education and social support offered by the CenteringPregnancy model.

Women-centered care: Implementation of CenteringPregnancy® in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: In response to a relatively high perinatal mortality rate in The Netherlands, the Dutch Health Ministry recommended changes to maternity care, opening a pathway toward more integrated woman-centered services. Because of its potential to positively influence risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes, CenteringPregnancy (CP) group prenatal care was implemented. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study (n = 2318) and survey on women's experiences (n = 222) in eight primary care midwifery practices to investigate outcome differences between CP and traditional individual prenatal care. Data from the period 2011-2013 were analyzed. RESULTS: Primiparous and multiparous CP women attended more prenatal care visits compared with women who received individual care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.23 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.29] and 1.29 [1.21-1.36]). Fewer primiparous CP women used pain relief during labor (0.56 [0.43-0.73]), and they initiated breastfeeding more often (1.74 [1.15-2.62]). Women participating in CP were more likely to feel that their wishes with respect to medication use (69.1% vs 54.4%, P = 0.039), physical activities (72.8% vs 52.5%, P = 0.008), and relaxation exercises (67.9% vs 35.6%, P ≤ 0.001) were listened to by care providers. They also felt more supported to actively participate in their care (89.6% vs 68.5%, P = 0.001) and felt more able to voice opinions about care (92.7% vs 73.9%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The CP model is a good approach aligning with Dutch policy calling for women-centered care and responding to the needs of pregnant women. This study supports CP scale-up in The Netherlands and adds to the pool of international knowledge about CP implementation.

Effects of a Multi-site Expansion of Group Prenatal Care on Birth Outcomes.

Objectives Perinatal Quality Collaboratives across the United States are initiating projects to improve health and healthcare for women and infants. We compared an evidence-based group prenatal care model to usual individual prenatal care on birth outcomes in a multi-site expansion of group prenatal care supported by a state-wide multidisciplinary Perinatal Quality Collaborative. Methods We analyzed 15,330 pregnant women aged 14-48 across 13 healthcare practices in South Carolina (2013-2017) using a preferential-within cluster matching propensity score method and logistic regression. Outcomes were extracted from birth certificate data. We compared outcomes for (a) women at the intent-to-treat level and (b) for women participating in at least five group prenatal care visits to women with less than five group visits with at least five prenatal visits total. Results In the intent-to-treat analyses, women who received group prenatal care were significantly less likely to have preterm births (absolute risk difference - 3.2%, 95% CI - 5.3 to - 1.0%), low birth weight births (absolute risk difference - 3.7%, 95% CI - 5.5 to - 1.8%) and NICU admissions (absolute risk difference - 4.0%, 95% CI - 5.6 to - 2.3%). In the as-treated analyses, women had greater improvements compared to intent-to-treat analyses in preterm birth and low birth weight outcomes. Conclusions for Practice CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care is effective across a range of real-world clinical practices for decreasing the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. This is a feasible approach for other Perinatal Quality Collaboratives to attempt in their ongoing efforts at improving maternal and infant health outcomes.

Implementing Group Prenatal Care in Southwest Georgia Through Public-Private Partnerships.

Introduction CenteringPregnancy® is well-regarded as an innovative group model of prenatal care. In 2009, Georgia's Southwest Public Health District partnered with local obstetricians and medical centers to expand prenatal care access and improve perinatal outcomes for low-income women by implementing Georgia's first public health administered CenteringPregnancy program. This paper describes the successful implementation of CenteringPregnancy in a public health setting with no prior prenatal services; assesses the program's first 5-year perinatal outcomes; and discusses several key lessons learned. Methods Prenatal and hospital medical records of patients were reviewed for the time period from October 2009 through October 2014. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine demographic and clinical characteristics of women initiating prenatal care and to assess perinatal outcomes among patients with singleton live births who attended at least three CenteringPregnancy sessions or delivered prior to attending the third session. Results Six hundred and six low-income women initiated prenatal care; 55.4 and 36.4% self-identified as non-Hispanic black and Hispanic, respectively. The median age was 23 years (IQR 20, 28). Nearly 69% initiated prenatal care in the first trimester. Perinatal outcomes were examined among 338 singleton live births. The 2010-2014 preterm birth rate (% of births < 37 weeks gestation at delivery) and low birth weight rate (% of births < 2500 g) were 9.1 and 8.9%, respectively. Nearly 77% of women initiated breastfeeding. Discussion CenteringPregnancy administered via public-private partnership may improve access to prenatal care and perinatal outcomes for medically underserved women in low-resource settings.

Examining Delivery Method and Infant Feeding Intentions between Women in Traditional and Non-Traditional Prenatal Care.

Introduction The purpose of the study is to evaluate delivery method and breastfeeding initiation in women enrolled in group prenatal care (CenteringPregnancy) and in traditional prenatal care. Methods Data were obtained from medical records of a hospital-based midwifery practice in south central Connecticut that offered both types of prenatal care programs. Medical information from 307 women enrolled in this practice was included in the analysis. Out of the 307, 80 were enrolled in group prenatal care. Socio-demographic, lifestyle, and previous and current obstetrical information from medical records formed the basis of comparison. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were carried out. Results Women in Centering had fewer planned cesarean sections (1.3 vs. 12.8%) and had a higher breastfeeding initiation (88.7 vs. 80.0%). However, Centering women were found to have a higher portion of unplanned cesarean sections (27.5 vs. 11.0%). Both the unadjusted and the adjusted odds ratios of having a cesarean planned delivery were lower in the group care. Women in Centering had 2.44 (95% CI 1.05, 5.66) times the odds of breastfeeding initiation compared to the odds for women in traditional prenatal care after adjusting for maternal age, smoking status, gestation and race. Discussion CenteringPregnancy can have positive impact for the woman and baby. This program implementation saw lower rates of elective cesarean sections and increased breastfeeding compared to women in traditional care.

Vulnerable Women's Perceptions of Individual Versus Group Prenatal Care: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey.

Introduction Vulnerable pregnant women (e.g. women with low socio-economic status or recent immigrants) are less likely to receive adequate prenatal care or to attend perinatal education classes. CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a model of group prenatal care which combines assessment, education and support. This study aimed to assess patient experience among vulnerable women in group prenatal care compared to individual care. Methods Women participating in CP at a community-based health centre in urban Alberta were eligible to participate. A convenience sample of women who received individual care at a low-risk maternity clinic served as comparison. Women were asked a series of questions on their prenatal care experience. Demographic and patient responses were compared using Chi square, fisher's exact and t tests. Results Forty-five women accessing CP and 92 women accessing individual care participated. Women in CP were younger, more likely to be single and having their first baby than women in individual care. Women in CP were significantly more likely to report having received enough information on exercise during pregnancy (92 vs. 66%, p = 0.002), breastfeeding (95 vs. 70%, p = 0.002) and baby care (95 vs. 67%, p = 0.001). Women in CP were more likely to report that they felt their prenatal care providers were interested in how the pregnancy was affecting their life (100 vs. 93%, p ≤ 0.001). Discussion Group prenatal care provides a positive experience and improved information exchange among vulnerable populations. Programs interested in engaging, educating and empowering vulnerable pregnant women may benefit from implementation of group care.

Group prenatal care.

Patients participating in group prenatal care gather together with women of similar gestational ages and 2 providers who cofacilitate an educational session after a brief medical assessment. The model was first described in the 1990s by a midwife for low-risk patients and is now practiced by midwives and physicians for both low-risk patients and some high-risk patients, such as those with diabetes. The majority of literature on group prenatal care uses CenteringPregnancy, the most popular model. The first randomized controlled trial of CenteringPregnancy showed that it reduced the risk of preterm birth in low-risk women. However, recent meta-analyses have shown similar rates of preterm birth, low birthweight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission between women participating in group prenatal care and individual prenatal care. There may be subgroups, such as African Americans, who benefit from this type of prenatal care with significantly lower rates of preterm birth. Group prenatal care seems to result in increased patient satisfaction and knowledge and use of postpartum family planning as well as improved weight gain parameters. The literature is inconclusive regarding breast-feeding, stress, depression, and positive health behaviors, although it is theorized that group prenatal care positively affects these outcomes. It is unclear whether group prenatal care results in cost savings, although it may in large-volume practices if each group consists of approximately 8-10 women. Group prenatal care requires a significant paradigm shift. It can be difficult to implement and sustain. More randomized trials are needed to ascertain the true benefits of the model, best practices for implementation, and subgroups who may benefit most from this innovative way to provide prenatal care. In short, group prenatal care is an innovative and promising model with comparable pregnancy outcomes to individual prenatal care in the general population and improved outcomes in some demographic groups.

The Role of Trust in CenteringPregnancy: Building Interpersonal Trust Relationships in Group-Based Prenatal Care in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a specific model of group-based prenatal care for women, implemented in 44 midwifery practices in The Netherlands since 2011. Women have evaluated CP positively, especially in terms of social support, and improvements have been made in birthweight and preterm-birth outcomes; however, there is limited understanding as to why. The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanisms that create trusting relationships within CP to better understand CP outcomes and effectiveness. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using in-depth interviews with 26 (former) CP participants, alongside observations of CP sessions. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed following open, axial, and selective coding. RESULTS: Most women characterized trust as a positive expectation about how others would respond to sensitive information that was shared within the group. Trust emerged within the data as a multidimensional concept and several preconditions seemed crucial in building trusting relations: vulnerability, communication, reciprocity, chemistry, and atmosphere. The facilitating of interpersonal trust among CP participants enhanced group processes, especially as a basis for social support by which women said they were more eager to share sensitive information in a trusting environment. CONCLUSIONS: Processes of trust were interwoven within various CP group dynamics. Trust facilitated social support which in turn enabled reassurance and the building of women's self-confidence.

Promoting improved social support and quality of life with the CenteringPregnancy® group model of prenatal care.

This prospective cohort study compared women participating in CenteringPregnancy® group prenatal care (N = 120) with those in standard individual care (N = 221) to determine if participation in Centering was associated with improvements in perceived social support and quality of life, with concomitant decreases in screens of postpartum depression and improvements in breastfeeding rates. Participants completed surveys at the onset of prenatal care, in the late third trimester and in the postpartum period. Centering participants had higher scores of perceived social support from friends after participating in group care (p < 0.05) with associated improvements in quality of life in the psychological and relational domains (p < 0.05) compared to standard care participants who showed higher scores of perceived support from family (p < 0.05) but did not show concomitant improvements in quality of life. This did not translate to any significant difference in scores on postpartum depression screens but was associated with improvements in breastfeeding continuation rates among Centering participants in the postpartum period. This study indicates that Centering care is associated with improved perceptions of peer social support with associated improvements in quality of life and higher rates of continued breastfeeding.

Group Prenatal Care Attendance: Determinants and Relationship with Care Satisfaction.

Objectives Group prenatal care results in improved birth outcomes in randomized controlled trials, and better attendance at group prenatal care visits is associated with stronger clinical effects. This paper's objectives are to identify determinants of group prenatal care attendance, and to examine the association between proportion of prenatal care received in a group context and satisfaction with care. Methods We conducted a secondary data analysis of pregnant adolescents (n = 547) receiving group prenatal care in New York City (2008-2012). Multivariable linear regression models were used to test associations between patient characteristics and percent of group care sessions attended, and between the proportion of prenatal care visits that occurred in a group context and care satisfaction. Results Sixty-seven groups were established. Group sizes ranged from 3 to 15 women (mean = 8.16, SD = 3.08); 87 % of groups enrolled at least five women. Women enrolled in group prenatal care supplemented group sessions with individual care visits. However, the percent of women who attended each group session was relatively consistent, ranging from 56 to 63 %. Being born outside of the United States was significantly associated with higher group session attendance rates [B(SE) = 11.46 (3.46), p = 0.001], and women who received a higher proportion of care in groups reported higher levels of care satisfaction [B(SE) = 0.11 (0.02), p < 0.001]. Conclusions Future research should explore alternative implementation structures to improve pregnant women's ability to receive as much prenatal care as possible in a group setting, as well as value-based reimbursement models and other incentives to encourage more widespread adoption of group prenatal care.

Group based prenatal care in a low-and high risk population in the Netherlands: a study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CenteringPregnancy (CP) is a multifaceted group based care-model integrated in routine prenatal care, combining health assessment, education, and support. CP has shown some positive results on perinatal outcomes. However, the effects are less obvious when limited to the results of randomized controlled trials: as there are few trials and there is a variation in reported outcomes. Furthermore, former research was mostly conducted in the United States of America and in specific (often high risk) populations. Our study aims to evaluate the effects of CP in the Netherlands in a general population of pregnant women (low and high risk). Furthermore we aim to explore the mechanisms leading to the eventual effects by measuring potential mediating factors. DESIGN: We will perform a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial, in a Western region in the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria are <24 weeks of gestation and able to communicate in Dutch (with assistance). Women in the control period will receive individual care, women in the intervention period (starting at the randomized time-point) will be offered the choice between individual care or CP. Primary outcomes are maternal and neonatal morbidity, retrieved from a national routine database. Secondary outcomes are health behavior, psychosocial outcomes, satisfaction, health care utilization and process outcomes, collected through self-administered questionnaires, group-evaluations and individual interviews. We will conduct intention-to-treat analyses. Also a per protocol analysis will be performed comparing the three subgroups: control group, CP-participants and non-CP-participants, using multilevel techniques to account for clustering effects. DISCUSSION: This study contributes to the evidence regarding the effect of CP and gives a first indication of the effect and implementation of CP in both low and high-risk pregnancies in a high-income Western society other than the USA. Also, measuring factors that are hypothesized to mediate the effect of CP will enable to explain the mechanisms that lead to effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR4178 , registered September 17th 2013.

The comparative effects of group prenatal care on psychosocial outcomes.

To compare the psychosocial outcomes of the CenteringPregnancy (CP) model of group prenatal care to individual prenatal care, we conducted a prospective cohort study of women who chose CP group (N = 124) or individual prenatal care (N = 124). Study participants completed the first survey at study recruitment (mean gestational age 12.5 weeks), with 89% completing the second survey (mean gestational age 32.7 weeks) and 84% completing the third survey (6 weeks' postpartum). Multiple linear regression models compared changes by prenatal care model in pregnancy-specific distress, prenatal planning-preparation and avoidance coping, perceived stress, affect and depressive symptoms, pregnancy-related empowerment, and postpartum maternal-infant attachment and maternal functioning. Using intention-to-treat models, group prenatal care participants demonstrated a 3.2 point greater increase (p < 0.05) in their use of prenatal planning-preparation coping strategies. While group participants did not demonstrate significantly greater positive outcomes in other measures, women who were at greater psychosocial risk benefitted from participation in group prenatal care. Among women reporting inadequate social support in early pregnancy, group participants demonstrated a 2.9 point greater decrease (p = 0.03) in pregnancy-specific distress in late pregnancy and 5.6 point higher mean maternal functioning scores postpartum (p = 0.03). Among women with high pregnancy-specific distress in early pregnancy, group participants had an 8.3 point greater increase (p < 0.01) in prenatal planning-preparation coping strategies in late pregnancy and a 4.9 point greater decrease (p = 0.02) in postpartum depressive symptom scores. This study provides further evidence that group prenatal care positively impacts the psychosocial well-being of women with greater stress or lower personal coping resources. Large randomized studies are needed to establish conclusively the biological and psychosocial benefits of group prenatal care for all women.

Effects of Group Prenatal Care on Food Insecurity during Late Pregnancy and Early Postpartum.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of group to individual prenatal care in late pregnancy and early postpartum on (1) women's food security and (2) psychosocial outcomes among food-insecure women. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited 248 racially diverse, low-income, pregnant women receiving CenteringPregnancy™ group prenatal care (N = 124) or individual prenatal care (N = 124) to complete surveys in early pregnancy, late pregnancy, and early postpartum, with 84 % completing three surveys. Twenty-six percent of group and 31 % of individual care participants reported food insecurity in early pregnancy (p = 0.493). In multiple logistic regression models, women choosing group versus individual care were more likely to report food security in late pregnancy (0.85 vs. 0.66 average predicted probability, p < 0.001) and postpartum (0.89 vs. 0.78 average predicted probability, p = 0.049). Among initially food-insecure women, group participants were more likely to become food-secure in late pregnancy (0.67 vs. 0.35 individual care average predicted probability, p < 0.001) and postpartum (0.76 vs. 0.57 individual care average predicted probability, p = 0.052) in intention-to-treat models. Group participants were more likely to change perceptions on affording healthy foods and stretching food resources. Group compared to individual care participants with early pregnancy food insecurity demonstrated higher maternal-infant attachment scale scores (89.8 vs. 86.2 points for individual care, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Group prenatal care provides health education and the opportunity for women to share experiences and knowledge, which may improve food security through increasing confidence and skills in managing household food resources. Health sector interventions can complement food assistance programs in addressing food insecurity during pregnancy.