Table 2.
Characteristics of the studies investigating measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization
| Author, Year | Country | Index | Design | Population and Sample Size | Data Source | Overall Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander, 1996 [12] | USA |
- Kessner - APNCUI - GINDEX - R-GINDEX -PHS/EPPC |
Retrospective cohort study |
Pregnant women having a singleton live birth in South Carolina N = 169,082 |
Administrative health database (1989–1991) | Fair |
| Beeckman, 2013 [26] | Belgium |
- APNCUI - CTP |
Prospective cohort study |
Pregnant women seen at medical centres in Brusssels Metropolitan Region N = 333 |
Interview (2008) | Good |
| da Silva, 2013 [24] | Brazil |
- Kessner - APNCUI - IPR/Prenatal Index |
Cross-sectional study |
Pregnant women seen at primary care services in the municipality of Joao Pessoa N = 238 |
Survey (2010–2011) | Fair |
| Delgado-Rodriguez, 1996 [27] | Spain |
- Kessner - APNCUI |
Case-control study |
Pregnant women seen at a University hospital in Granada N = 632 |
Chart review and interview (1990–1993) | Fair |
| Dos Santos, 2013 [25] | Brazil |
- Kessner - APNCUI - GINDEX - PHS/EPPC - IPR/Prenatal Index - Carvalho & Novaes Index - Ciari Index - Coutinho Index |
Retrospective cohort study |
Pregnant women admitted for delivery at public and outsourced maternity hospitals in Greater Metropolitan Vitória N = 1006 |
Chart review and interview (2010) | Fair |
| Heaman, 2008 [15] | Canada |
- APNCUI - R-GINDEX |
Retrospective cohort study |
Pregnant women having a hospital-based singleton live birth in Winnipeg N = 80,989 |
Administrative health database (1991–2000) | Good |
| Koroukian, 2002 [19] | USA | - APNCUI | Cross-sectional study |
Pregnant women having a singleton live birth in Ohio N = 591,403 |
Administrative health database (1993–1996) | Fair |
| Kotelchuck, 1994 [10] | USA |
- Kessner - APNCUI |
Retrospective cohort study |
Women with prenatal care information on the birth certificate from the 1980 National Natality Survey N = 9941 |
Survey (1980) | Poor |
| Kurtzman, 2014 [20] | USA |
- APNCUI - LV-APNC Index |
Retrospective cohort study |
Pregnant women having a singleton live hospital birth in New York State N = 58,462 |
Perinatal Database (2007–2011) | Fair |
| Penrod, 2000 [21] | USA |
- Kessner - APNCUI |
Retrospective cohort study |
Women with prenatal care information on the birth certificate from the 1980 National Natality Survey N = 7973 |
Survey (1980) | Poor |
| Perloff, 1997 [22] | USA |
- Kessner - APNCUI |
Retrospective cohort study |
Women with birth certificate data from New York city N = 255,884 |
Administrative health database (1991–1992) | Fair |
| Rosenberg, 2004 [23] | USA |
- APNCUI - Cluster solution |
Retrospective cohort study |
Women with live birth data from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey N = 3544 |
Survey (1988) | Good |
| VanderWeele, 2009 [14] | USA |
- Kessner - APNCUI - GINDEX |
Retrospective cohort study |
Women with live birth data from the 2003 National Center for Health Statistics Linked Birth and Infant Death Cohort files N = NR |
Administrative health database (2003) | Good |
APNCUI Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index, CTP Content and Timing of Care in Pregnancy, GINDEX Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index, IPR Infrastructure, process, and results, LV-APNC Last Visit Adequacy of Prenatal Care Index, PHS/EPPC United States Public Health Service Expert Panel on Prenatal Care, R-GINDEX Revised-Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index, NR Not reported, USA United States of America