ArticlePloS one2020
The elements of success in a comprehensive state-wide program to safely reduce the rate of preterm birth.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Methodological Pitfalls Complicating the Analysis of Early Term Births.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2026Article
- Reframing spontaneous preterm birth as a preventable adverse outcome-A clinical audit of a preventative toolbox.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Redesigning antenatal care: Prospective use of an implementation framework to establish a population-based multidisciplinary first-trimester screening, assessment and prevention service.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2024Article
- The Western Australian preterm birth prevention initiative: a whole of state singleton pregnancy cohort study showing the need to embrace alternative models of care for Aboriginal women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Blood gene transcript signature profiling in pregnancies resulting in preterm birth: A systematic review.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2014, a whole-of-population and multi-faceted preterm birth prevention program was introduced in Western Australia with the single aim of safely lowering the rate of preterm birth. The program included new clinical guidelines, print and social media, and a dedicated new clinic. In the first full calendar year the rate of preterm birth fell by 7.6% and the reduction extended from the 28-31 week gestational age group upwards.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in greater depth and to also include the first three years of the program. STUDY
designThis was a prospective population-based cohort study of perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies before and after commencement of the program.
resultsThere was a significant reduction in preterm birth in the tertiary center which extended from 28 weeks gestation onwards and was ongoing. In non-tertiary centers there was an initial reduction, but this was not sustained past the first year. The greatest reduction was observed in pregnancies classified at first attendance as low risk. No benefit was observed in the private sector, but a significant reduction was seen in the remote region of the Kimberley where the program was first launched and vaginal progesterone had been made free-of-charge.
conclusionPreterm birth rates can be safely reduced by a multi-faceted and whole-of-population program but the effectiveness requires continuing effort and will be greatest where the strategies are most targeted.
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.