Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34217399›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2021

Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis.

Kirsten R Palmer, Michael Tanner, Miranda Davies-Tuck, Andrea Rindt, Kerrie Papacostas, Michelle L Giles, Kate Brown, Helen Diamandis, Rebecca Fradkin, Alice E Stewart and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
18.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Evaluation of the uptake and usability of the pregnant women surveillance system (SIMG): A cross-sectional pilot study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Rate of prenatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease continued to improve despite COVID-19 pandemic: multicenter Canadian study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. The roles of COVID-19 pandemic exposure and telehealth in prenatal care access for rural and racial minority communities in the United States: A retrospective cohort study.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kirsten R PalmerMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: kirsten.palmer@monash.edu.
Michael TannerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Miranda Davies-TuckHudson Institute of Medical Research, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Andrea RindtMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Kerrie PapacostasMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michelle L GilesMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Kate BrownMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Helen DiamandisMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rebecca FradkinMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alice E StewartMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Daniel L RolnikMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Andrew StrippFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Euan M WallaceDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Safer Care Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ben W MolMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Ryan J HodgesMonash Women's and Newborn, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Monash Health · AUMonash University · AUHudson Institute of Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle evidence is available on the use of telehealth for antenatal care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and implemented a new antenatal care schedule integrating telehealth across all models of pregnancy care. To inform this clinical initiative, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of telehealth in antenatal care.

methodsWe analysed routinely collected health data on all women giving birth at Monash Health, a large health service in Victoria (Australia), using an interrupted time-series design. We assessed the impact of telehealth integration into antenatal care from March 23, 2020, across low-risk and high-risk care models. Allowing a 1-month implementation period from March 23, 2020, we compared the first 3 months of telehealth integrated care delivered between April 20 and July 26, 2020, with conventional care delivered between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020. The primary outcomes were detection and outcomes of fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes. Secondary outcomes were stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks' gestation).

findingsBetween Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020, 20 031 women gave birth at Monash Health during the conventional care period and 2292 women gave birth during the telehealth integrated care period. Of 20 154 antenatal consultations provided in the integrated care period, 10 731 (53%) were delivered via telehealth. Overall, compared with the conventional care period, no significant differences were identified in the integrated care period with regard to the number of babies with fetal growth restriction (birthweight below the 3rd percentile; 2% in the integrated care period vs 2% in the conventional care period, p=0·72, for low-risk care models; 5% in the integrated care period vs 5% in the conventional care period, p=0·50 for high-risk care models), number of stillbirths (1% vs 1%, p=0·79; 2% vs 2%, p=0·70), or pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia (3% vs 3%, p=0·70; 9% vs 7%, p=0·15), or gestational diabetes (22% vs 22%, p=0·89; 30% vs 26%, p=0·06). Interrupted time-series analysis showed a significant reduction in preterm birth among women in high-risk models (-0·68% change in incidence per week [95% CI -1·37 to -0·002]; p=0·049), but no significant differences were identified in other outcome measures for low-risk or high-risk care models after telehealth integration compared with conventional care.

interpretationTelehealth integrated antenatal care enabled the reduction of in-person consultations by 50% without compromising pregnancy outcomes. This care model can help to minimise in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic, but should also be considered in post-pandemic health-care models.

fundingNone.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultFemaleHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPrenatal CareRetrospective StudiesTelemedicineVictoria

Identifiers

PMID34217399
PMCPMC8248925
OpenAlexW3173477219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.