PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(15): 1659-1664
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739413
Original Article

The Impact of Group Prenatal Care on Interpregnancy Interval

Justine M. Keller 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Jessica A. Norton
2   Affinia Healthcare, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Fan Zhang
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Rachel Paul 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Tessa Madden
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Nandini Raghuraman
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Molly J. Stout
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Ebony B. Carter
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
› Institutsangaben Funding Funding was provided by funds from the Institute for Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis and the Washington University Institute of Clinical Translational Sciences (grant numbers: UL1 TR000448 and TL1 TR000449) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Carter is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant number 74250), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIHD, grant number: K23HD095075), and the American Diabetes Association (ADA, grant number: 1-19 ACE-02).
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate whether participation in CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care is associated with decreased risk of an interpregnancy interval (IPI) ≤6 months.

Study Design We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women enrolled in Missouri Medicaid from 2007 to 2014 using maternal Medicaid data linked to infant birth certificate records. Inclusion criteria were women ≥11 years old, ≥1 viable singleton delivery during the study period, residency in St. Louis city or county, and ≥2 prenatal visits. The primary outcome was an IPI ≤6 months. Secondary outcomes included IPI ≤12 months, IPI ≤18 months, postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and postpartum LARC or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) uptake. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders including maternal age, race, obesity, nulliparity, marital status, diabetes, hypertension, prior preterm birth, and maternal education.

Results Of the 54,968 pregnancies meeting inclusion criteria, 1,550 (3%) participated in CenteringPregnancy. CenteringPregnancy participants were less likely to have an IPI ≤6 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47–0.79) and an IPI ≤12 months (aOR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.62–0.87). However, there was no difference for an IPI ≤18 months (aOR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.77–1.13). Women in CenteringPregnancy were more likely to use LARC for postpartum contraception (aOR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.20–1.57).

Conclusion Participation in CenteringPregnancy is associated with a significant decrease in an IPI ≤6 and ≤12 months and a significant increase in postpartum LARC uptake among women enrolled in Missouri Medicaid compared with women in traditional prenatal care.

Key Points

  • CenteringPregnancy is associated with a significant decrease in interpregnancy intervals ≤6 and ≤12 months.

  • LARC uptake is significantly higher among patients participating in CenteringPregnancy.

  • CenteringPregnancy participation enhances self-efficacy in making contraception decisions and promotes healthy pregnancy spacing.

Keywords

prenatal care - CenteringPregnancy - long-acting reversible contraception - prenatal visits - interpregnancy interval - family planning - Medicaid

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 09. November 2020

Angenommen: 03. Oktober 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. Dezember 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermúdez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295 (15) 1809-1823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ahrens KA, Nelson H, Stidd RL, Moskosky S, Hutcheon JA. Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal outcomes in high-resource settings: an updated systematic review. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2019; 33 (01) O25-O47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Blumenfeld YJ, Baer RJ, Druzin ML. et al. Association between maternal characteristics, abnormal serum aneuploidy analytes, and placental abruption. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (02) 144.e1-144.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Razzaque A, Da Vanzo J, Rahman M. et al. Pregnancy spacing and maternal morbidity in Matlab, Bangladesh. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89 (Suppl. 01) S41-S49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 8: interpregnancy care. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (01) e51-e72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Copen CE, Thoma ME, Kirmeyer S. Interpregnancy intervals in the United States: data from the birth certificate and the national survey of family growth. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64 (04) 1-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gemmill A, Lindberg LD. Short interpregnancy intervals in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (01) 64-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Morse JE, Moos MK. Reproductive life planning: raising the questions. Matern Child Health J 2018; 22 (04) 439-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rising SS. CenteringPregnancy. An interdisciplinary model of empowerment. J Nurse Midwifery 1998; 43 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McCue BK, Borders AE, Choby B. Group prenatal care. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 731. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131: e104-e108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Trotman G, Chhatre G, Darolia R, Tefera E, Damle L, Gomez-Lobo V. The effect of CenteringPregnancy versus traditional prenatal care models on improved adolescent health behaviors in the perinatal period. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2015; 28 (05) 395-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Patberg E, Young M, Archer S. et al. Postpartum contraceptive use and other reproductive health outcomes among CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care participants. JWomens Health (Larchmt) 2021; 30 (07) 990-996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Callegari LS, Aiken AR, Dehlendorf C, Cason P, Borrero S. Addressing potential pitfalls of reproductive life planning with patient-centered counseling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (02) 129-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hale N, Picklesimer AH, Billings DL, Covington-Kolb S. The impact of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on postpartum family planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (01) 50.e1-50.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Smith E. Centering contraception: postpartum contraceptive choices of women enrolled in Centering group prenatal care versus traditional prenatal care. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2018; 44 (02) 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Su J. Group Prenatal Care Improves Birth Outcomes. Yale Daily News. 2018 . Accessed November 11, 2020 at: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/10/16/group-prenatal-care-improves-birth-outcomes/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kangatharan C, Labram S, Bhattacharya S. Interpregnancy interval following miscarriage and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23 (02) 221-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar