ArticleMaternal and child health journal2016
Electronic Medical Record Use and Maternal and Child Care and Health.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational Phenotyping of OMOP CDM Normalized EHR for Prenatal and Postpartum Episodes: An Informatics Framework and Clinical Implementation on All of Us.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023Article
- Barriers to the Digitization of Health Information: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study in Kenya and Lao PDR Using a Cloud-Based Maternal and Child Registration System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Implementation of a Regional Perinatal Data Repository from Clinical and Billing Records.Maternal and child health journal · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate effects of EHR adoption and use during pregnancy on maternal and child health care utilization and health among pregnant mothers and their infants.
methodsThe study population was comprised of all Medicaid-insured pregnant women who delivered a singleton birth in Michigan between 1/1/2009 and 12/31/2012 and their infants (N = 226,558). Linked data included birth records, maternal and infant medical claims, and EHR adoption, implementation, upgrading and meaningful use data. Pre-post comparisons with a control group (difference-in-difference) took advantage of a natural experiment of EHR adoption and use among providers in Michigan. Women and infants who received care from providers who adopted and used EHR were compared with those who received care from other providers, in a quasi-experimental framework.
resultsOver 34 % of all women in the analytic sample received perinatal care from providers who adopted and used EHR. Multivariate regressions indicate that women who received prenatal care mainly from a provider who adopted and used EHR were more likely to have any well-child visits (0.05, p = 0.04), and the appropriate number of well-child visits during the first year of life (0.03, p < 0.01).
conclusionsThe findings of this study are consistent with EHR adoption and use supporting improved child health care utilization. The findings have the potential to provide Medicaid and other healthcare program officials with evidence of the potential gains to be derived from EHRs for vulnerable low-income women and infants.
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.