Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26243139›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2016

Why Are Half of Women Interested in Participating in Group Prenatal Care?

Sarah D McDonald, Wendy Sword, Leyla N Eryuzlu, Binod Neupane, Joseph Beyene, Anne B Biringer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Patient Characteristics Associated With Group Prenatal Care Attendance in a Randomized Controlled Trial.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah D McDonaldDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radiology, and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, HSC 3N52B, Hamilton, ON, L8S4K1, Canada. mcdonals@mcmaster.ca.
Wendy SwordDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4K1, Canada.
Leyla N EryuzluFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4K1, Canada.
Binod NeupaneDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, HSC 3N52B, Hamilton, ON, L8S4K1, Canada.
Joseph BeyeneDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 1280 Main St. West, MDCL 3211, Hamilton, ON, L8S4K1, Canada.
Anne B BiringerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 60 Murray Street, Fourth Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3L9, Canada.
McMaster University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the likelihood of participating in group prenatal care (GPC) and associated factors among low-risk women receiving traditional prenatal care from obstetricians, family physicians or midwives, and to determine factors associated with likelihood of participating.

methodsPrior to completing a self-administered questionnaire, a 2-min compiled video of GPC was shown to pregnant women receiving traditional prenatal care. Data were collected on opinions of current prenatal care, GPC, and demographics. Biologically plausible variables with a p value ≤0.20 were entered in the multivariable logistic regression model and those with a p value <0.05 were retained.

resultsOf 477 respondents, 234 [49.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44.6-53.6%] reported being "definitely" or "probably likely" to participate in GPC. Women were more likely to participate in GPC if they had at least postsecondary education [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.05-3.24], had not discussed labour with their care provider (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.12-2.44), and valued woman-centeredness ("fairly important" aOR 2.81, 95% CI 1.77-4.49; "very important" aOR 4.10, 95% CI 2.45-6.88). Women placed high importance on learning components of GPC. The majority would prefer to be with similar women, especially in age. About two-thirds would prefer to have support persons attend GPC and over half would be comfortable with male partners.

conclusionApproximately half of women receiving traditional prenatal care were interested in participating in GPC. Our findings will hopefully assist providers interested in optimizing satisfaction with traditional prenatal care and GPC by identifying important elements of each, and thus help engage women to consider GPC.

Indexed as

Group ProcessesAdultFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsOdds RatioPatient SatisfactionPregnancyPrenatal CareSurveys and QuestionnairesAntenatal careCenteringPregnancyGroup prenatal careTraditional prenatal careWomen’s preferences

Identifiers

PMID26243139
OpenAlexW1104657617

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.