Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41973714›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2026

Quality of first antenatal care visits and perinatal outcomes: Evidence from a cohort study in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and India.

Wen-Chien Yang, Shalom Sabwa, Anagaw Derseh Mebratie, Beatrice Amboko, Irene Mugenya, Sein Kim, Emily R Smith, Monica Chaudhry, Nokuzola Cynthia Mzolo, Nompumelelo Gloria Mfeka-Nkabinde and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Wen-Chien YangDepartment of Global Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8206-1496
Shalom SabwaDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7121-1807
Anagaw Derseh MebratieDepartment of Health Systems Management and Health Policy, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6489-335X
Beatrice AmbokoHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5754-3853
Irene MugenyaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Sein KimDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4475-3878
Emily R SmithDepartment of Global Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5715-9459
Monica ChaudhryPublic Health Foundation of India, Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Nokuzola Cynthia MzoloSchool of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Nompumelelo Gloria Mfeka-NkabindeDepartment of Family Medicine, Howard College Campus, University of KwaZulu-Natal, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Theodros GetachewDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6486-0531
Tefera TaddeleHealth System and Reproductive Health Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Damen Haile MariamDepartment of Health Systems Management and Health Policy, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Sailesh MohanPublic Health Foundation of India, Delhi, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1853-3596
Prashant JarhyanCentre for Chronic Disease Control, Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Margaret E KrukDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9549-8432
Catherine ArsenaultDepartment of Global Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2410-3015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antenatal care (ANC) is crucial for maternal and newborn health. Although ANC coverage has improved globally, ANC quality remains suboptimal. This study assessed the quality of first ANC visits and their association with perinatal outcomes. We used data from the eCohort study that collected longitudinal data on ANC utilization and quality until the end of pregnancy in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and India. Perinatal outcomes of interest included fetal losses (miscarriages ≥13 weeks of gestation or stillbirths) and low birth weight (LBW) newborns. Good quality ANC at first visits was defined as receiving six essential care components: blood pressure measurement, blood and urine tests, ultrasound, iron and folic acid supplementation, and counseling on pregnancy danger signs. We conducted mixed-effect logistic regressions to assess associations between good quality ANC and perinatal outcomes, with sensitivity analyses where good quality ANC excluded ultrasound scans. Among 3,600 pregnant women followed until the end of pregnancy, 5.8% received all six components at their first visits (from 1.3% in India to 14.0% in Ethiopia), and 30.7% received five components (5.7% in India to 52.5% in Kenya). Between 3.7% of women in Ethiopia and 6.3% in India experienced a fetal loss. Between 8.5% of newborns in Ethiopia and 16.3% in India were born LBW. Good quality ANC at first visits was associated with a 32% to 59% lower risk of fetal loss (primary analysis: risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.72; sensitivity analysis: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-0.92). No significant associations were observed between good quality ANC and LBW. This study identified important gaps in ANC quality and found that good quality ANC is associated with a lower fetal loss risk. Investments must be made to improve ANC quality and ensure the delivery of essential care in pregnancy.

Identifiers

PMID41973714
PMCPMC13075702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.