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 Prenatal Care vs. Traditional Prenatal Care: A Parity-Matched Comparison of Perinatal Outcomes in a Rural Community.

PURPOSE: Prenatal care is important for positive outcomes for both mother and infant. The traditional one-on-one method remains the most common. This study aimed to compare perinatal outcomes of patients attending group prenatal care with traditional prenatal care. Most previously published comparisons did not match for parity, a key predictor of perinatal outcome. DESCRIPTION: We collected perinatal outcome data for 137 group prenatal care patients and 137 traditional prenatal care patients, matched for contemporaneous delivery and parity, who delivered at our small rural hospital during 2015-2016. We included key public health variables, including the initiation of breastfeeding, and smoking at the time of delivery. ASSESSMENT: There was no difference between the two groups for maternal age or infant ethnicity, induced or augmented labor, preterm deliveries, APGAR scores less than 7, low birth weight, NICU admissions, or cesarean deliveries. Group care patients had more prenatal visits and were more likely to initiate breastfeeding and were less likely to report smoking at the time of delivery. CONCLUSION: In our rural population matched for contemporaneous delivery and parity, we found no difference in traditional perinatal outcome measures and that group care was positively associated with the key public health variables of not smoking and initiating breastfeeding. If future studies in other populations have similar findings, it may be wise to provide group care more widely to rural populations.

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.

Impact of Group Prenatal Care on Contraceptive Use at Twelve Weeks Postpartum.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence of highly effective contraceptive use by 12 weeks postpartum among participants of Centering Pregnancy®, a model of group prenatal care (GPC), and traditional prenatal care (TPC), and to investigate differences in contraceptive method choice by type of prenatal care. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all eligible patients who participated in GPC (n = 143) and a random sample of patients participating in TPC (n = 290) who followed up at our institution within 12 weeks of delivery. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants using a highly effective contraceptive method within 12 weeks postpartum. Contraceptives were classified in tiers (Tier 1, long-acting reversible and permanent contraception; Tier 2, oral contraceptive pills, transdermal patch, vaginal ring, or injection; Tier 3, barrier and fertility awareness methods, withdrawal, spermicide; and no method). Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods were considered highly effective. RESULTS: The prevalence of highly effective contraceptive use by 12 weeks postpartum was 63.6% (91 of 143) and 63.1% (183 of 290) among participants in GPC and TPC, respectively (p = 0.99). We found no difference in Tier 1 versus other method use (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.15, p = 0.34) or Tier 2 versus other method use between groups (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.08, p = 0.69), in a multivariable model controlling for demographic and clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: The prevalence of highly effective contraceptive use at 12 weeks postpartum was not different between GPC and TPC participants in this study. GPC was not associated with increased use of Tier 1 or Tier 2 contraceptive methods.

The Association of Moms2B, a Community-Based Interdisciplinary Intervention Program, and Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes among Women Residing in Neighborhoods with a High Rate of Infant Mortality.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effectiveness of Moms2B, a community-based group pregnancy and parenting program, in an effort to assess whether the program improved pregnancy and infant outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched exposure cohort study comparing women exposed to the Moms2B program during pregnancy (two or more prenatal visits) who delivered a singleton live birth or stillbirth (≥ 20 weeks gestation) from 2011-2017 to a closely matched group of women not exposed to the program. Primary outcomes were preterm birth and low birth weight. Propensity score methods were used to provide strong control for confounders. RESULTS: The final analytic file comprised 675 exposed pregnancies and a propensity score-matched group of 1336 unexposed pregnancies. Most of the women were non-Hispanic Black. We found evidence of better outcomes among pregnancies exposed to Moms2B versus unexposed pregnancies, particularly for the primary outcome of low birth weight [9.45% versus 12.00%, respectively, risk difference (RD) = -2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (-5.44, 0.34)]. Point estimates for all adverse pregnancy outcomes uniformly favored exposure to Moms2B. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our findings suggest that participation in the Moms2B program improves pregnancy and infant outcomes. The program offers an innovative group model of pregnancy and parenting support for women, especially in non-Hispanic Black women with high-risk pregnancies.

"When I think of mental healthcare, I think of no care." Mental Health Services as a Vital Component of Prenatal Care for Black Women.

PURPOSE: Black people give birth joyously despite disproportionate rates of adverse perinatal outcomes. Given that group prenatal care shows promise in mitigating these inequities, we sought to solicit the opinions of Black peripartum women on how group prenatal care could be tailored to fit their specific needs. In this study, we describe attitudes about a proposed Black group prenatal care in a single focus group of 11 Black women who receive maternal health services from Black Infant Health (BIH, a state and federal funded state-wide program for Black pregnant people with the goal to improve infant and maternal health). These data were used to design a race-conscious group prenatal care curriculum specifically for Black women at UCSF. DESCRIPTION: This study was an analysis of focus group data generated as part of a larger project focused on community involvement in Black maternal health. English speaking pregnant or recently postpartum women age 18 or older who receive services from BIH were recruited to participated in the focus group analyzed in this study. All facilitators of the focus group were Black women in order to facilitate candid conversation about racism in prenatal care. ASSESSMENT: The need for mental health care was common thread underlying all conversations about prenatal health improvements desired by our focus groups. Participants expressed the centrality of mental health access during our discussion of other themes (e.g.: ease of access, inclusion of partners, special classes for teen moms) by discussing them in terms of their relationship to mental health. Our participants' clear expression of the centrality of mental health care to their prenatal health guided our decision to focus on mental health as a necessary pillar of any group prenatal care intervention designed to mitigate perinatal healthcare disparities in this paper. Three themes related to mental health integration into group prenatal care emerged from thematic analysis of the transcripts. Participants expressed insufficient access and advocacy, and provider distrust. CONCLUSION: Evidence exists supporting group prenatal care as a tool for mitigation of perinatal health disparities among Black women. There is also a large body of data describing the disproportionate burden of mental health needs among Black women. The rich data we present here from Black women on their desire for the integration of these two needs fits well into the parallel conversation occurring in the literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating desires of Black women regarding group prenatal care designed specifically for them. They expressed a strong desire for more access to mental health care providers who are racially conscious and aware of white supremacy, and nuanced opinions on the role of racial concordance in health equity.

A paradigm shift to address racial inequities in perinatal healthcare.

Health inequities are not caused by personal failings or shortcomings within disadvantaged groups, which can be erased with behavioral interventions. The scope of the problem is much greater and will only fully be addressed with the examination of the systems, structures, and policies that perpetuate racism, classism, and an economic, class, race, or gender divide between patients and the people who care for them. Solution-oriented strategies to achieve health equity will remain elusive if researchers continue to focus on behavior modification in patients while failing to do harder work that includes focusing on the institutions, community, and societal contexts in which pregnant women are living; addressing social determinants of health; considering racism in study design, analysis, and reporting; valuing the voices of patients, practitioners, and researchers from historically disadvantaged groups; disseminating research findings back to the community; and developing policy and reimbursement structures to support care delivery change that advances equitable outcomes. A case study shows us how group prenatal care may be one viable vehicle through which to affect this change. Group prenatal care is one of the few interventions shown to improve pregnancy outcomes for black women. Studies of group prenatal care have predominantly focused on the patient, but here we propose that the intervention may exert its greatest impact on clinicians and the systems in which they work. The underlying mechanism through which group prenatal care works may be through increased quantity and quality of patient and practitioner time together and communication. We hypothesize that this, in turn, fosters greater opportunity for cross-cultural exposure and decreases clinician implicit bias, explicit bias, and racism, thus increasing the likelihood that practitioners advocate for systems-level changes that directly benefit patients and improve perinatal outcomes.

Group prenatal care and improved birth outcomes: Results from a type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study.

To compare birth outcomes for patients receiving Expect With Me (EWM) group prenatal care or individual care only, we conducted a type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial (Detroit and Nashville, 2014-2016). Participants entered care <24 weeks gestation, had singleton pregnancy, and no prior preterm birth (N = 2402). Mean participant age was 27.1 (SD = 5.77); 49.5% were Black; 15.3% were Latina; 59.7% publicly insured. Average treatment effect of EWM compared to individual care only was estimated using augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW). This doubly-robust analytic method produces estimates of causal association between treatment and outcome in the absence of randomization. AIPW was effective at creating equivalent groups for potential confounders. Compared to those receiving individual care only, EWM patients did significantly better on three of four primary outcomes: lower risk of infants born preterm (<37 weeks gestation; 6.4% vs. 15.1%, risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.29, 0.54), low birthweight (<2500 g; 4.3% vs. 11.6%, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24, 0.49), and admission to NICU (9.4% vs. 14.6%, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49, 0.78). There was no difference in small for gestational age (<10% percentile of weight for gestational age). EWM patients attended a mean of 5.9 group visits (SD = 2.7); 70% attended ≥5 group visits. Post-hoc analyses indicated EWM patients utilizing the integrated information technology platform had lower risk for low birthweight infants (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24, 0.86) than non-users. Future research is needed to understand mechanisms by which group prenatal care improves outcomes, best practices for implementation, and health systems savings. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02169024.

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.

Effects of March of Dimes Supportive Pregnancy Care on Maternal and Infant Health Across Diverse Patient Populations: a Quasi-Experimental Multi-Site Pilot Study.

Group prenatal care may be a promising alternative to traditional one-on-one care. However, research on its effects has produced inconsistent findings and raises questions about effectiveness across different patient populations. This pilot study evaluated the effects of March of Dimes Supportive Pregnancy Care (SPC) on maternal health and behavior across six diverse healthcare sites. Analyses of a propensity score-matched medical record dataset aggregated across sites (N = 1950) indicated significant unfavorable effects on gestational age at delivery (b = - 0.34, p < .05), birthweight (b = - 94.55, p < .05), and low birthweight (OR = 1.10, p < .05). However, these findings did not hold up to sensitivity analyses. Significant favorable aggregate effects were observed for postpartum visit attendance (OR = 1.68; 95% CI [1.12, 2.53]), breastfeeding at delivery (OR = 1.84; 95% CI [1.20, 2.83]), and breastfeeding at follow-up (OR = 3.82; 95% CI [1.46, 9.97]). These findings remained largely consistent across sensitivity analyses. In addition to these aggregate effects, significant site-level effects were observed, but only for two sites. Both were racially homogenous, serving White and African American patient populations, respectively. Future research should determine whether these effects can be generalized to women receiving care in racially heterogeneous settings or whether they are limited to White and African American women receiving care in racially homogenous settings. Efforts to roll out SPC should be accompanied by a continual accrual of research assessing the effects of this program on maternal and infant health across a range of geographic settings and patient profiles.

Gestational weight gain and group prenatal care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Group visits for chronic medical conditions in non-pregnant populations have demonstrated successful outcomes including greater weight loss compared to individual visits for weight management. It is plausible that group prenatal care can similarly assist women in meeting gestational weight gain goals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of group vs. traditional prenatal care on gestational weight gain. METHODS: A keyword search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar was performed up to April 2017. Studies were included if they compared gestational weight gain in a group prenatal care setting to traditional prenatal care in either randomized controlled trials, cohort, or case-control studies. The primary and secondary outcomes were excessive and adequate gestational weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine guidelines. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q test and I2 statistic. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and confidence intervals (CI) were reported with random-effects models from the randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies. RESULTS: One RCT, one secondary analysis of an RCT, one study with "random assignment", and twelve cohort studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 13,779 subjects. Thirteen studies used the CenteringPregnancy model, defined by 10 sessions that emphasize goal setting and self-monitoring. Studies targeted specific populations such as adolescents, African-Americans, Hispanics, active-duty military or their spouses, and women with obesity or gestational diabetes. There were no significant differences in excessive [7 studies: pooled rates 47% (1806/3582) vs. 43% (3839/8521), RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23] or adequate gestational weight gain [6 studies: pooled rates 31% (798/2875) vs. 30% (1410/5187), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.08] in group and traditional prenatal care among the nine studies that reported categorical gestational weight gain outcomes in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Group prenatal care was not associated with excessive or adequate gestational weight gain in the meta-analysis. Since outcomes were overall inconsistent, we propose that prenatal care models (e.g., group vs. traditional) should be evaluated in a more rigorous fashion with respect to gestational weight gain.

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.

Group Prenatal Care Attendance and Women's Characteristics Associated with Low Attendance: Results from Centering and Racial Disparities (CRADLE Study).

OBJECTIVES: Group prenatal care (GPC), an alternative to individual prenatal care (IPC), is becoming more prevalent. This study aimed to describe the attendance and reasons of low attendance among pregnant women who were randomly assigned to receive GPC or IPC and explore the maternal characteristics associated with low-attendance. METHODS: This study was a descriptive study among Medically low risk pregnant women (N = 992) who were enrolled in an ongoing prospective study. Women were randomly assigned to receive CenteringPregnany GPC (N = 498) or IPC (N = 994) in a single clinical site The attendance frequency and reason for low-attendance (i.e. ≤ 5/10 sessions in GPC or ≤ 5 visits in IPC) were described separately in GPC and IPC. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to explore the associations between maternal characteristics and low-attendance. RESULTS: On average, women in GPC attended 5.32 (3.50) sessions, with only 6.67% attending all 10 sessions. Low-attendance rate was 34.25% in GPC and 10.09% in IPC. The primary reasons for low-attendance were scheduling barriers (23.19%) and not liking GPC (16.43%) in GPC but leaving the practice (34.04%) in IPC. In multivariable analysis, lower perceived family support (P = 0.01) was positively associated with low-attendance in GPC, while smoking in early pregnancy was negatively associated low-attendance (P = 0.02) in IPC. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Scheduling challenges and preference for non-group settings were the top reasons for low-attendance in GPC. Changes may need to be made to the current GPC model in order to add flexibility to accommodate women's schedules and ensure adequate participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02640638 Date Registered: 12/20/2015.

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.

Shared medical appointments and patient-centered experience: a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shared medical appointments (SMAs), or group visits, are a healthcare delivery method with the potential to improve chronic disease management and preventive care. In this review, we sought to better understand opportunities, barriers, and limitations to SMAs based on patient experience in the primary care context. METHODS: An experienced biomedical librarian conducted literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and SSRN for peer-reviewed publications published 1997 or after. We searched grey literature, nonempirical reports, social science publications, and citations from published systematic reviews. The search yielded 1359 papers, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies. Categorization of the extracted data informed a thematic synthesis. We did not perform a formal meta-analysis. RESULTS: Screening and quality assessment yielded 13 quantitative controlled trials, 11 qualitative papers, and two mixed methods studies that met inclusion criteria. We identified three consistent models of care: cooperative health care clinic (five articles), shared medical appointment / group visit (10 articles) and group prenatal care / CenteringPregnancy® (11 articles). CONCLUSIONS: SMAs in a variety of formats are increasingly employed in primary care settings, with no singular gold standard. Accepting and implementing this nontraditional approach by both patients and clinicians can yield measurable improvements in patient trust, patient perception of quality of care and quality of life, and relevant biophysical measurements of clinical parameters. Further refinement of this healthcare delivery model will be best driven by standardizing measures of patient satisfaction and clinical 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.

Pregnancy and Zika: The Quest for Quality Care and Reproductive Justice.

On February 1, 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the ZIKV virus outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Pregnant women and their infants, are vulnerable to the impact of this vector-borne illness (mosquito) and sexually transmitted viral infection. The uncertainty surrounding the possibility of congenital anomalies due to ZIKV infection during pregnancy bring a renewed debate about the rights of women to control their reproductive decisions. Current strategies, resources and services aimed at prevention priorities fall short of responding to a clear framework regarding sexual reproductive health, rights and justice. A comprehensive approach to reproduction, in times of Zika, needs to empower women of reproductive age and their families to make decisions and to act on those decisions. This paper highlights the contributions of the Maternal-Infant Studies Center (CEMI-Spanish Acronym) in close collaboration with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of the Puerto Rico School of Medicine and the University Hospital in providing comprehensive health care to pregnant women with ZIKV or at risk of ZIKV, at the very onset of the epidemic. CEMI approaches the care of pregnant women from a reproductive justice perspective, integrating clinical services, education, research, and advocacy. Transformación Prenatal (Centering Group Prenatal Care, GPC) currently implemented at the Puerto Rico University Hospital High Risk Clinics has been pivotal to achieve this aim. Based on the health professionals' experiences and women's testimonies, we articulate a set of principles and key actions that would benefit women, their family and children.

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.