ArticleInternational journal of women's health2014
Effectiveness of the professional who carries out the health education program: perinatal outcomes.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review of Breastfeeding Interventions and Programs Conducted Across Spanish-Speaking Countries.Health promotion practice · 2025Article
- Present Situation and the Future Development of Web-Based Prenatal Education in China: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Article
- How Did Prenatal Education Impact Women's Perception of Pregnancy and Postnatal Life in a Romanian Population.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Impacts of online and group perinatal education: a mixed methods study protocol for the optimization of perinatal health services.BMC health services research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine whether a maternal education program conducted by midwives achieves better results in regard to maternal and newborn health than when the program is conducted by other health professionals.
methodsFive hundred and twenty primiparous women attending four (two university) public hospitals in southern Spain in 2011 were recruited to participate in this prospective cohort study. Data on sociodemographic and obstetric variables and characteristics of newborns were collected by interviews and from clinical charts. Crude and logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.
resultsA midwife was in charge of education for 75.4% of the 354 women who attended maternal education programs. Midwife-conducted programs had significantly more women attending more than three sessions than the programs conducted by other health professionals (aOR 2.85, 95% CI 1.60-5.11). Midwives achieved more active participation from mothers during delivery (aOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.15-3.33), more early skin-to-skin contact between the mother and newborn (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.23), more early breastfeeding (aOR 2.08, 95% CI 1.18-3.70), and fewer newborns with low birth weight (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.65) compared with other health professionals.
conclusionMidwives achieve better results than other health professionals in regard to the health of the mother and her newborn when they are in charge of the maternal education program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.