ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
Evaluating the Impact of Telehealth Prenatal Care at a Federally Qualified Health Center.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians had to reimagine perinatal care. Mary's Center, a federally qualified health center, built an innovative telehealth group prenatal care (T-GPNC) program to ensure equitable and safe access to health care. T-GPNC includes an individual telehealth assessment and group education. We conducted a program evaluation to determine the adequacy of prenatal care for T-GPNC clients compared with individual prenatal care (IPC) clients and to describe client satisfaction with T-GPNC.
methodsThis mixed-methods study included a retrospective chart review of electronic health records of Spanish-speaking midwifery clients at Mary's Center between July 1, 2021, and August 31, 2023, and client satisfaction surveys for T-GPNC. The T-GPNC intervention was offered only to Spanish-speaking clients in this timeframe. Our main outcome of interest was the adequacy of prenatal care, measured by generating an Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index. We conducted a thematic analysis of the surveys that included open-ended and categorical questions.
resultsThe study sample for adequacy of prenatal care included 141 T-GPNC and 193 IPC clients. The majority of clients were Latinx, and 97.9% received public insurance or were uninsured. T-GPNC clients were significantly more likely to receive adequate or adequate-plus care at 67.9% compared to 39.1% for IPC clients (χ DISCUSSION: T-GPNC provided critical support to Spanish-speaking clients during the COVID-19 pandemic, producing higher rates of adequate prenatal care for T-GPNC clients than for those receiving IPC and resulting in highly satisfied T‑GPNC clients. These statistically significant and clinically meaningful results indicate the value added by implementing T-GPNC.
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.