ArticleMaternal and child health journal1999
Use of social services by pregnant Medicaid eligible women in Baltimore.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- In the shadow of academic medical centers: a systematic review of urban health research in Baltimore City.Journal of community health · 2010Pooled it
- Health promotion and psychosocial services and women's assessments of interpersonal prenatal care in Medicaid managed care.Maternal and child health journal · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo use linked health and social service databases to determine differences in the use of social services by pregnant women in different managed care systems.
methodsComparison of service use by women enrolled in a fee-for-service primary care case management program (Maryland Access to Care or MAC), in a capitated health maintenance organization (HMO), or not assigned to managed care using six state databases. Participants included 5181 women receiving Medical Assistance (MA) and delivering in Baltimore City in 1993. Outcome measures were receipt of WIC, AFDC, and Food Stamps.
resultsThe overall proportions of women receiving WIC, AFDC, and Food Stamps at delivery were 52.7%, 89.2%, and 62.7%, respectively. Women enrolled in an HMO at delivery were less likely to be receiving WIC (adjusted odds ratios, 0.8, 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93), AFDC (OR, 0.20; CI, 0.03 to 0.43 for women with prior children and OR 0.13; CI, 0.09 to 0.20 for women without prior children), and Food Stamps (OR 0.77; CI, 0.59 to 0.95 for women with prior children and OR, 0.49; CI, 0.35 to 0.67 for women without prior children) than their MAC counterparts. Women not assigned to managed care also generally were less likely than their MAC counterparts to receive WIC (OR 0.55; CI, 0.46, 0.66), AFDC (OR 1.07; CI 0.83, 1.30 for women with prior children and OR 0.24; CI 0.18, 0.34 for women without prior children), and Food Stamps (OR 0.31; CI 0.08, 0.55 for women with prior children and OR 0.31; CI 0.23, 0.41 for women without prior children).
conclusionsAlthough many low-income pregnant women qualify for select social services, receipt of WIC and Food Stamps was low. Increasing efforts are needed by managed care systems and public health agencies to ensure delivery of appropriate services for women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10746751What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.