ArticlePloS one2024
Integrated group antenatal and pediatric care in Haiti: A comprehensive care accompaniment model.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Group antenatal care positively transforms the care experience: Results of an effectiveness trial in Malawi.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Dyadic Care Interventions and Outcomes for Mothers and Their Infants: A Scoping Review.Pediatrics · 2025Article
- Integrating postnatal care into the redesign of group care beyond birth.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- "Ekip Manman": Group Prenatal Care Adapted for Pregnant Haitian Immigrants in Boston, Massachusetts.Health equityArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe J9 Plus (J9) maternal-child accompaniment program is based on four pillars: group antenatal care (GANC), group pediatric care, psychosocial support, and community-based care. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the J9 model of care on perinatal outcomes. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a convergent mixed methods study of maternal-newborn dyads born in 2019 at Hôpital Universitaire de Mirebalais. Quantitative data was collected retrospectively to compare dyads receiving J9 care to usual care. A secondary analysis of qualitative data described patient perspectives of J9 care.
resultsAntenatal care attendance was significantly higher among women in J9 (n = 524) compared to usual care (n = 523), with 490(93%) and 189(36%) having >4 visits, respectively; p <0.001, as was post-partum visit attendance [271(52%) compared to 84(16%), p<0.001] and use of post-partum family planning methods [98(19%) compared to 47(9%), p = 0.003]. Incidence of pre-eclampsia with severe features was significantly lower in the J9 group [44(9%)] compared to the usual care group [73(14%)], p <0.001. Maternal and neonatal mortality and low birth weight did not differ across groups. Cesarean delivery [103(20%) and 82(16%), p<0.001] and preterm birth [118 (24%)] and 80 (17%), p <0.001] were higher in the J9 group compared to usual care, respectively. In the qualitative analysis, ease of access to high-quality care, meaningful social support, and maternal empowerment through education were identified as key contributors to these outcomes.
conclusionCompared to usual care, the J9 Plus maternal-child accompaniment model of care is associated with increased engagement in antenatal and postpartum care, increased utilization of post-partum family planning, and lower incidence of pre-eclampsia with severe features, which remains a leading cause of maternal mortality in Haiti. The J9 accompaniment approach to care is an empowering model that has the potential to be replicated in similar settings to improve quality of care and outcomes globally.
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.