The potential impact of introducing a cost tool to facilitate cost-of-care conversations in routine OB care: Lessons from the CONTINUE pilot study.

Objective: The objective of the CONTINUE study is to gather preliminary data on the potential impact of implementing a "Cost Tool" in routine obstetrics (OB) care. It is hypothesized that by providing prenatal patients with an ability to forecast their care plan, they would be better able to anticipate and plan for the costs associated with their prenatal care. Methods: Pilot data from interviews and surveys were collected from 71 prenatal patients across three clinics throughout Chicago, IL. Results: As compared to privately insured prenatal patients, prenatal patients with public insurance reported the most benefit in Cost Tool use. Specifically, that the Cost Tool helped to navigate insurance more effectively (OR 4.49, p=0.0254), see the "Big Picture" and link it to the family budget (OR 4.25, p=0.0099), and make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through pregnancy (OR 5.50, p=0.0305). Conclusion: The CONTINUE study provides preliminary signals of the Cost Tool's potential to help publicly insured prenatal patients better navigate the costs associated with their care plan. Innovations: The CONTINUE study contributes valuable preliminary data about the utility of a cost tool in routine OB care, especially as it may benefit low-income prenatal patients navigate prenatal care better.

The Benefits of Introducing a Pregnancy Support Tool for Low-Income Women During Routine Obstetrics Care.

The objective of the CONTINUE (conversations in routine OB care) pilot study was to gather preliminary data on the benefits of integrating a well-designed pregnancy support tool ("CONTINUE Tool") in low-income prenatal care. A total of 184 tools were distributed by 21 OB providers during the study implementation period. Follow-up data were collected from 71 (38.5%) prenatal patients across three community-based midwestern OB clinics serving a diverse prenatal patient population. Early-gestation prenatal patients received the strategically designed CONTINUE Tool during routine prenatal care and later completed a semi-structured interview or electronic survey to report pre-determined individual benefit items experienced due to tool usage. Factor analysis used individual benefit items to identify factors representing common underlying benefits ("factor benefits"). Logistic regression analyses were performed to describe the relative odds of participants with low income (public insurance) experiencing individual and factor benefits of tool use compared to participants of higher income (private insurance). Chi square tests (or Fisher's exact tests) were performed to generate P values reflecting statistically significant differences by income group. More low-income prenatal participants reported experiencing individual benefits as compared to higher-income participants. Among factor benefits, low-income participants were statistically more likely to report experiencing a time-related logistics benefit (OR = 4.00; 95% CI 1.02-15.73; P = .045). Low-income participants reported experiencing an overall logistics factor benefit (OR = 4.29; 95% CI 0.47-38.75), including a cost-related logistics benefit (OR = 3.08; CI 0.59-16.00), as well as an understanding benefit (OR = 1.90; 95% CI 0.72-5.04) and a self-efficacy benefit (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.44-3.87). While this study is limited by sample size due to being a pilot study, the findings suggest there may be tangible benefits to introducing the CONTINUE Tool among low-income prenatal patients. Given the staggering inequity in OB care and subsequent health outcomes, any preliminary findings on ways to help combat this are necessary and should lay the groundwork for subsequent randomized trials. Our preliminary findings show that supplementing routine OB care with the CONTINUE Tool can confer benefits to both providers and patients, but particularly for low-income prenatal patients who tend to have more structural barriers to adequate care in the first place.

Reducing the cesarean delivery rate.

BACKGROUND: The cesarean delivery rate has been rising in recent years, having associated maternal morbidities. Elective induction of labor has also been seen to rise during this same time period. OBJECTIVE: This current study investigated the difference in the cesarean delivery rate between induction of labor and spontaneous labor among nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex-presenting women. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort in a single institution over a seven-year period was used for this analysis, observing the difference in cesarean delivery rate at different term gestational ages and neonatal morbidity using the 5-minute Apgar score < 5. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found in cesarean delivery rate between those women whose labor was induced and those whose labor began spontaneously, at each term gestational age of labor initiation (P < 0.001). The proportion of indications for induction was described (i.e. elective vs. medically-indicated), and no difference was found for neonatal morbidity between the groups analyzed, using the 5-minute Apgar score as the perinatal outcome measure. CONCLUSION: A comparison was made between spontaneous and induced labor regarding the resultant cesarean delivery rate, and a significant difference was found favoring spontaneous labor. This should be considered when electing to deliver using an induction methodology for nulliparous women, especially when there are no medical indications for it.