ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Person-centeredness of the San Francisco Pregnancy Village model of cross-sector care delivery: A mixed-methods study.
Article in Women's health (London, England). 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.
- Evaluating the pilot pop up pregnancy & family village: a community initiative to improve maternal and infant health in St. Joseph County, Indiana.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Comfort in a cross-sector care delivery model to address birth inequities: Learnings from San Francisco's Pregnancy Village.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRacial disparities in perinatal outcomes are worsened by systemic racism in the United States. San Francisco's Pregnancy Village is a novel cross-sector care delivery model providing a one-stop shop for city government, clinical, and community-based wraparound services, delivered in an uplifting, celebratory, and dignified environment to center Black and other minoritized pregnant people and their families.
objectivesTo evaluate the person-centeredness of the Pregnancy Village model's first event series: the SF Family and Pregnancy Pop-Up Village.
designWe employed a convergent mixed-methods study design. Data were collected between July 2021 and June 2022.
methodsWe conducted quantitative surveys with 116 Pregnancy Village participants (57 pregnant/postpartum individuals and 59 family members) and semi-structured in-depth interviews with purposively sampled 13 pregnant/postpartum people and five family members. Person-centered care was assessed using a 10-item scale. Standardized scores ranged from 0 to 100, where higher scores reflect higher person-centered care. We performed univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses, and thematic analyses of the qualitative data.
resultsThe mean person-centered care score was 91.2 (standard deviation = 12.1). Participants who experienced discrimination during prenatal encounters had significantly lower person-centered care scores than those who did not. In general, participants perceived the Pregnancy Village events as person-centered. A welcoming environment, patient visibility, and warm handoffs reflected responsive and supportive care; provider friendliness and intentionality reflected dignity and respect; and provider knowledge, inclusivity, and genuineness represented communication and autonomy. Identified gaps were related to follow-up and communication.
conclusionOur findings indicate that the Pregnancy Village model is person-centered and enables pregnant people and their families to receive care that prioritizes their needs, preferences, and values and has the potential to reduce health inequities in care experience and outcomes. Close follow-up after such events and providing language concordant support is crucial to achieving model goals.
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.