Observational studyRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2024
Access and adequacy of antenatal care in a city in Brazil during two phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Observational study in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Comment on: Access and adequacy of antenatal care in during two phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare access and suitability of antenatal care between years 2020 and 2022 among postpartum individuals at a Hospital in Florianopolis, and evaluate factors associated with antenatal suitability. Methods: Observational, cross-sectional, and quantitative study carried out in 2022. Collected data were compared with the database of a previous similar study carried out in the same setting in 2020. Data were extracted from medical records and prenatal booklets, in addition to a face-to-face questionnaire. Adequacy was measured using the Carvalho and Novaes index and health access was qualitatively evaluated. Socio-demographic and antenatal variables were analyzed. A statistical significance level of 0.05 was considered. Open-ended questions were categorized for analysis. Results: 395 postpartum individuals were included. Antenatal care was adequate for 48.6% in 2020 and 69.1% in 2022. Among the barriers to access, 56% reported difficulty in scheduling appointments and/or exams and 23% complained of reduced healthcare staff due to strikes, COVID-19, among others. Adequate antenatal care was associated with being pregnant in 2022, being referred to high-risk units (PNAR), and not reporting difficulties in access. Also, it was associated with twice the chance of investigation for gestational diabetes (GDM) and syphilis. Conclusion: The 2022 post-vaccination period showed higher antenatal adequacy. The main difficulty for postpartum individuals was scheduling appointments and/or exams. Having antenatal care in 2022, no reports of difficulty in access, and follow-up at a high-risk unit were associated with antenatal adequacy.
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.