ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Scaling evidence: national causal evaluation of perinatal quality collaboratives needs better data.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perinatal quality collaboratives (PQCs) have been widely adopted across US states to improve maternal-infant health care delivery and outcomes, yet rigorous evidence of their national impact on maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity remains limited. This commentary identifies 2 fundamental challenges constraining causal inference in PQC evaluations. First, inconsistent measurement of key outcomes, stemming from staggered state adoption of revised vital statistics certificates and coding changes, confounds attempts to distinguish genuine health improvements from data artifacts. Second, the causal pathway from state-level PQC adoption to health outcomes involves multiple intermediate changes in clinical practices and care delivery that remain unobserved in administrative data. This imprecision in treatment measurement, combined with rare outcomes, severely limits statistical power, especially for analysis of subpopulations at increased risk of adverse maternal-infant health outcomes (e.g., Black women, those in low-income communities). We recommend establishing a national registry to track quality improvement initiatives systematically, investing in harmonization of vital statistics data across states and time periods, and exploring alternative evaluation designs (e.g., synthetic control methods, stepped-wedge trials) to credibly estimate PQC impacts on maternal health outcomes.
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.