Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31419964›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Antenatal care for alcohol consumption during pregnancy: pregnant women's reported receipt of care and associated characteristics.

Emma Doherty, John Wiggers, Luke Wolfenden, Amy E Anderson, Kristy Crooks, Tracey W Tsang, Elizabeth J Elliott, Adrian J Dunlop, John Attia, Julia Dray and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Emma DohertyHunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia. emma.doherty@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8445-6766
John WiggersHunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Luke WolfendenHunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Amy E AndersonSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Kristy CrooksHunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Tracey W TsangFaculty of Medicine and Health and Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Elizabeth J ElliottFaculty of Medicine and Health and Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Adrian J DunlopDrug and Alcohol Clinical Services, Hunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
John AttiaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Julia DraySchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Belinda TullyHunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Nicole BennettMaternity and Gynaecology John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Henry MurrayMaternity and Gynaecology John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Carol AzzopardiMaternity and Gynaecology John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Melanie KingslandHunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.

Funding

Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship 101175National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship APP1128348National Health and Medical Research Council Medical Reseach Futures Fund Practitioner Fellowship APP1135959National Health and Medical Research Council Partnership Project Grant APP1113032National Health and Medical Research Council Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) Research Fellowship APP1150476
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntenatal clinical guidelines recommend that during initial and subsequent antenatal visits all pregnant women: have their alcohol consumption assessed; be advised that it is safest not to consume alcohol during pregnancy and of the potential risks of consumption; and be offered referrals for further support if required. However, the extent to which pregnant women attending public antenatal services receive guideline recommended care at these visits, and the characteristics associated with its receipt, is unknown. The purpose of this study was to examine: 1) pregnant women's reported receipt of guideline recommended care addressing alcohol consumption during pregnancy; 2) characteristics associated with the receipt of care; and 3) pregnant women's acceptability of care.

methodsFrom July 2017 - February 2018 a survey (telephone or online) was undertaken with 1363 pregnant women who had recently visited a public antenatal service in one health district in Australia. Receipt and acceptability of recommended care were assessed via descriptive statistics and associations via logistic regression analyses.

resultsAt the initial antenatal visit, less than two thirds (64.3%) of pregnant women reported that they received an assessment of their alcohol consumption and just over one third (34.9%) received advice and referral appropriate to their self-reported level of alcohol consumption since pregnancy recognition. Less than 10% of women received such care at subsequent antenatal visits. Characteristics that significantly increased the odds of receiving all guideline elements at the initial antenatal visit included: less than university attainment (OR = 1.93; 95% CI:1.12, 3.34), not residing in an advantaged area (OR = 2.11; 95% CI:1.17, 3.79), first pregnancy (OR = 1.91; 95% CI:1.22, 2.99) and regional/rural service location (OR = 2.38; 95% CI:1.26, 4.48); and at subsequent visits: younger age (OR = 0.91; 95% CI:0.84, 0.99) and Aboriginal origin (OR = 3.17; 95% CI:1.22, 8.24). Each of the recommended care elements were highly acceptable to pregnant women (88.3-99.4%).

conclusionsAlthough care for alcohol consumption is both recommended by clinical guidelines and highly acceptable to pregnant women, its receipt in public antenatal services is suboptimal. There is a need and an opportunity for interventions to support antenatal care providers to routinely and consistently provide such care to all pregnant women.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholismAustraliaFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CarePractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnant PeoplePrenatal CarePrenatal DiagnosisRural PopulationAlcohol consumptionAntenatal careEvidence-based practiceImplementationMaternalPregnancyQuantitative methods

Identifiers

PMID31419964
PMCPMC6698023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.