Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9065232›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of public health1997

Primary care case management and birth outcomes in the Iowa Medicaid program.

E D Schulman, D J Sheriff, E T Momany

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of public health, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A note on policymakers as research subjects.American journal of public health · 1998
    Article
  10. The road from managed care.American journal of public health · 1997
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

E D SchulmanUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington 40536-0003, USA.
D J Sheriff
E T Momany

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study compares prenatal care utilization and birth outcomes between Iowa Medicaid recipients receiving care in a primary care case management (PCCM) system and those receiving care in a fee-for-service (FFS) system.

methodsBirth certificates linked with Medicaid hospitalization claims were analyzed for seven PCCM and seven FFS counties.

resultsFrom 1989 through 1992, there was (1) a 20% increase in the number of women who received adequate prenatal care in the FFS counties, vs a 5% increase in the PCCM counties; (2) a 17% increase in the number of women who initiated care within the first trimester in the FFS counties, vs a 6% increase in the PCCM counties; and (3) a 442% increase in the number of women who received enhanced prenatal services in the FFS counties, vs a 278% increase in the PCCM counties. There were no significant differences between groups in mean gestational age or birthweight; however, there was an increase of very-low-birthweight babies in both groups.

conclusionsPCCM, as implemented by the Iowa Medicaid program, has not appreciably improved prenatal care utilization or birth outcomes.

Indexed as

MedicaidPregnancy OutcomeCase ManagementFee-for-Service PlansFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansIowaLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyPrenatal CarePrimary Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID9065232
PMCPMC1380769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.