Observational studyBMJ open2019
Did an urban perinatal health programme in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, reduce adverse perinatal outcomes? Register-based retrospective cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Building Cross-sectoral Collaborations to Address Perinatal Health Inequities: Insights From the Dutch Healthy Pregnancy 4 All-3 Program.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Creating a sense of urgency and provoking action - An example on the use of heat maps to address perinatal health inequalities.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo study the effect of an urban perinatal health programme in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, on perinatal outcomes.
designA retrospective cohort study with difference-in-differences analysis using individual-level perinatal outcome data from the Dutch Perinatal Registry 2003-2014 linked to Central Bureau of Statistics data of migration background and individual disposable household income.
interventionThe programme consisted of perinatal health promotion, risk selection and risk-guided pregnancy care, and a new primary care child birth centre. The programme was implemented during 2009-2012. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared trends in perinatal mortality, preterm delivery and small-for-gestational-age births between targeted urban neighbourhoods in Rotterdam (n=61 415) and all other urban neighbourhoods in the Netherlands (n=881 202). The effect of the programme was modelled as a change in trend of each perinatal outcome in the treatment group post intervention compared with the control population from January 2010 onwards. All analyses were adjusted for maternal age, parity, ethnicity and individual-level low socioeconomic status (SES). We also conducted a stratified analysis by SES.
resultsDuring 2003-2014, downward trends in perinatal mortality (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.9439 per year, 95% CI 0.9362 to 0.9517), preterm birth (aOR 0.9970 per year, 95% CI 0.9944 to 0.9997) and small-for-gestational-age births (aOR 0.9809 per year, 95% CI 0.9787 to 0.9831) in the entire study population were observed. No demonstrable changes in these trends were found in the intervention group after the programme had started. The stratified analyses by SES showed no changes in trends post intervention in both strata either.
conclusionsThe programme had no demonstrable effects on perinatal outcomes. The intervention may not have reached a sufficient proportion of the population or has provided too little contrast to the widespread attention for inequalities in pregnancy outcomes occurring simultaneously in the Netherlands.
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.