ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2019
Process and outcome of prenatal care according to the primary care models: a cohort study.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2019. 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.
- Nursing Process applicability in women's care in Primary Health Care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Adolescent pregnancies and adherence to puerperal consultation.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2022Article
- Factors associated with low adherence to postpartum consultation: a cross-sectional study.Revista CuidarteArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto evaluate the process and outcome indicators of the prenatal care developed in primary care, comparing traditional care models and the Family Health Strategy.
methodthis is a cohort study, conducted with an intentional sample of 273 mothers/babies from the neonatal period and followed up for one year. Donabedian evaluation was adopted and data were discussed based on the Social Determination of Health. The independent variable was the care model. The dependent variables in the process evaluation were related to the quality of prenatal care and to the quality score created and the evaluation of the outcome, to the conditions of birth and the first year of life. The evaluation of the process was performed by estimating the relative risk and the evaluation of the outcome was performed by the Cox Multiple Regression Model.
resultslower income and risk of the low prenatal quality score were identified in the Family Health Units, where there were more puerperium consultation and health education actions. There was no difference in outcome indicators.
conclusionpossibly the best quality of prenatal care was able to minimize negative socioeconomic effects found in family health, so the outcome indicators were similar in both models of the primary care.
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.