Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23152247›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Group versus conventional antenatal care for women.

Caroline S E Homer, Clare Ryan, Nicky Leap, Maralyn Foureur, Alison Teate, Christine J Catling-Paull

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Group versus conventional antenatal care for women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. From Midwife-Dominated to Midwifery-Led Antenatal Care: A Meta-Ethnography.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Caroline S E HomerCentre for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, Australia. caroline.homer@uts.edu.au
Clare Ryan
Nicky Leap
Maralyn Foureur
Alison Teate
Christine J Catling-Paull
University of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care is through a group model.

objectivesThe first objective was to compare the effects of group antenatal care versus one-to-one care on outcomes for women and their babies. The primary outcomes were preterm birth (birth occurring before 37 completed gestational weeks), low birthweight (less than 2500 g), small-for-gestational age (less than the tenth percentile for gestation and gender) and perinatal mortality. Secondary outcomes included psychological measures and satisfaction as well as labour and birth and postnatal outcomes.The second objective was to compare the effects of group care versus one-to-one care on care provider satisfaction. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 March 2012), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated trial quality. Two authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN

resultsWe included two studies (1369 women). There were no statistically significant differences between women who received group antenatal care compared with standard one-to-one care in relation to the primary outcomes. In particular, there was no difference in the rate of preterm birth rate between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.60; two trials; N = 1315) and the proportion of low birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between the groups (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.46; two trials; N = 1315).Satisfaction was rated highly in women who were allocated to group antenatal care but only measured in one trial. In this trial, the mean satisfaction with care in group antenatal care was almost five times higher compared with those allocated to standard care (N = 993). A number of outcomes related to stress, distress and depression were reported in one trial. There were no differences between the groups in any of these outcomes.There were no data available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women with no adverse outcomes for themselves or their babies. This review is limited owing to the small number of studies/women and the majority of the analyses are based on a single study. More research is required to determine if group antenatal care is associated with significant benefits.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornPeer GroupPregnancyPremature BirthPrenatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23152247
OpenAlexW4244172849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.