ArticleMaternal and child health journal2024
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Routine Prenatal Care: Use of Online Visits.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether prenatal visits or screening/testing were fewer or occurred later during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (CINT) as compared to the prior year (PreCINT).
methodsA retrospective cohort study compared CINT (n = 2,195) to PreCINT (n = 2,395) at seven public hospitals in New York City. The primary outcome was total number of prenatal-care visits. Secondary outcomes were components of prenatal-care visits completion, timing of standard pregnancy screening tests, and adverse neonatal outcomes.
resultsCINT patients had more total prenatal-care visits (B = 1.30, 95% CI:1.04, 1.56, p < 0.001), lower odds for initiation of prenatal care which was inadequate according to widely used criteria (OR:0.39, 95% CI:0.34, 0.45, p < 0.001), and lower gestational age at initial visit (B=-4.51, 95% CI:-5.10, -3.93, p < 0.001) than PreCINT patients. In-person visits did not differ between the two groups. PreCINT patients had no televisits, while CINT patients had a median of one televisit (Median = 1, p < 0.001). CINT patients had increased odds for group B Streptococcus screening (OR:1.27, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.48, p = 0.001), quadrivalent screening (OR:1.30, 95% CI:1.15, 1.48, p < 0.001), and anatomy sonogram (OR:2.30, 95% CI:2.04, 2.59, p < 0.001) but decreased odds for glucose challenge test screening (OR:0.81, 95% CI:0.72, 0.91, p < 0.001). Adverse neonatal outcome did not differ between CINT and PreCINT pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite the difficulties and perceived dangers of in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic had little negative impact upon the outpatient prenatal care received by patients in this hospital system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38270717What 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.