Abstract
Objective:
To describe patients’ preferences for prenatal and postpartum care delivery.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of postpartum patients admitted for childbirth and recovery at an academic institution. We assessed patient preferences for prenatal/postpartum care delivery, including visit number, between-visit contact (e.g., phone; electronic medical record portal communication), acceptability of remote monitoring (e.g., weight; blood pressure; fetal heart tones), and alternative care models (e.g., telemedicine; home visits). We compared preferences for prenatal care visit number to current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendations (12–14 prenatal visits).
Results:
Of the 332 women eligible for the study, 300 (90%) completed the survey. Women desired a median number of 10 prenatal visits (IQR 9–12), with most desiring fewer visits than currently recommended [<12: 63% (n=189); 12–14: 22% (n=65); >14: 15% (n=46)]. Women who had private insurance or were white were more likely to prefer fewer prenatal visits. The majority of patients desired contact with their care team between visits (84%). Most patients reported comfort with home monitoring skills, including measuring weight (91%), blood pressure (82%), and fetal heart tones (68%). Patients reported they would be most likely to use individual care models (94%), followed by pregnancy medical homes (72%) and home visits (69%). The majority of patients desired at least two postpartum visits (91%), with the first visit within three weeks after discharge (81%).
Conclusion:
Current prenatal/postpartum care delivery does not match patients’ preferences for visit number or between-visit contact and patients are open to alternative models of prenatal care, including remote monitoring. Future prenatal care redesign will need to consider diverse patients’ preferences and flexible models of care that are tailored to work with patients in the context of their lives and communities.
Précis:
Patients desire fewer prenatal visits and more postpartum visits than recommended by current guidelines.
Introduction:
Prenatal care is one of the most commonly utilized preventive care services in the United States. Of the 3.86 million women who give birth each year, over 98% will establish prenatal care with a maternity provider, resulting in over 18 million visits annually.1 Current recommendations for prenatal care include 12–14 office-based prenatal visits for low-risk women, in addition to routine lab work and ultrasounds. Recent national recommendations suggest a comprehensive approach to postpartum care,2 but many guidelines continue to endorse one postpartum visit.3,4
Although robust data is available for medical components of prenatal care such as administration of folic acid5 and screening for complications like aneuploidy6–9 and gestational diabetes,10 evidence is limited for outcomes related to prenatal care delivery such as visit number. Similarly, while evidence supports the safety and efficacy of alternative care models such as reduced visit schedules,11 pregnancy medical homes,12,13 and group care,12,14 head-to-head trials with comparative outcomes are not available. Therefore, current recommendations for prenatal care delivery are based on expert opinion.15 In areas of limited evidence for a particular delivery method, incorporating patient preferences is important for improving adherence and patient-centered outcomes.16,17
As part of a quality improvement initiative to optimize patients’ experience with outpatient maternity care, we conducted a survey of postpartum women’s preferences for prenatal/postpartum care delivery. In this manuscript, we present our findings on care delivery preferences, including visit frequency, visit type, and between-visit contact, and patient characteristics associated with those preferences, to inform future efforts to redesign prenatal care.
Methods:
We conducted a single site cross-sectional survey of postpartum women to evaluate patients’ prenatal/postpartum care preferences. Our overarching aim was to inform a larger quality improvement initiative to align care delivery with patient preferences. We recruited a convenience sample of women admitted for childbirth and postpartum recovery between May 7, 2019, and June 28, 2019. We planned to recruit 300 patients—the average number of women who deliver in our hospital in a typical month—to capture a representative sample of patient perspectives.
At the study site, attending and resident physicians function as a group practice to deliver standardized prenatal care across nine outpatient clinics, coordinated through electronic check-lists in the electronic medical record. The majority of women receive individual prenatal care from a general Obstetrician/Gynecologist (59%), Maternal Fetal Medicine specialist (15%), Family Medicine Physician (7%), or Certified Nurse Midwife (19%). A small number of patients (<1%) participate in a Centering® Pregnancy pilot (group prenatal care). Most clinics have access to a social worker who provides referrals for Women, Infants, & Children (WIC) services and addresses other social needs. For prenatal education, patients receive 1) anticipatory guidance during their standardized prenatal intake with a nurse, 2) handouts printed with the after-visit summary, 3) health care provider discussions during visits, 4) a booklet and class for third trimester teaching, and 5) a hospital-sponsored website with patient resources. Women within a 30-mile radius of the hospital are offered a home nurse visit postpartum; about half participate. To ensure high postpartum follow-up rates, several institutional workflows facilitate appointment scheduling. An appointment for postpartum care is created during the third trimester. When its timing needs to be adjusted for actual delivery, hospital staff help facilitate scheduling an appointment prior to discharge. All women receive automated reminders and a phone call from a clinic staff member the day before their appointment, and all “no-shows” are contacted to reschedule. Most women (88%) present for a postpartum appointment in the office 4–6 weeks after delivery.
For this study, patients were identified from the electronic medical record by a research assistant if they were at least 12 hours postpartum and had a live-born infant. We included all women ≥18 years old who were able to read and write in English. Women were approached in their postpartum room by a research assistant and invited to participate in the study. Patients were considered unavailable and not invited to participate if they were 1) with a member of their care team (health care provider, nurse, lactation consultant, etc.); 2) sleeping; or 3) were not in the room (e.g., visiting their infant in the NICU). Two attempts were made to reach patients who were initially not available. This study received exempt status as a quality improvement project by the University of Michigan Institutional Review. Board (HUM00159247)
We used Qualtrics software to develop and administer our survey. As there is no validated survey querying patients’ preferences for prenatal care delivery, a team was assembled to design the survey. We included three experts in survey methodology (VD, JB, MH) in our survey design. The survey was then reviewed by a multidisciplinary group of women’s health professionals who currently serve on the patient education committee (including obstetrician–gynecologists, midwives, nurses, prenatal education specialists, and administrators). The committee’s feedback was incorporated into the survey and reviewed a final time. The survey was pilot tested with three postpartum patients to confirm readability, comprehension, and length, and was iteratively revised.
The survey content was developed specifically to explore potential options for prenatal care delivery redesign. We conducted a literature search and interviewed prenatal care leaders across the United States to identify prenatal care models with evidence of safety and feasibility for pregnant patients. Care delivery includes how patients participate in prenatal care: visit frequency (number of prenatal and postpartum visits); visit model (individual, group, pregnancy medical home, etc. [See Table 1]); between-visit contact (desire for contact between visits; scheduled vs. unscheduled contact; mode of contact including phone, text messaging, etc.; and preferred contact person); and comfort with remote monitoring skills (measuring weight, blood pressure, and fetal heart tones).
Table 1.
Prenatal care visit models
| Care Model | Features |
|---|---|
| Individual15 | A woman goes to a clinic or office and sees her maternity care provider on her own. |
| A nurse checks the patient’s blood pressure and the baby’s heart rate. | |
| Pregnancy medical home18 | A woman meets with her team of maternity care providers, nurses and social workers. |
| The nurse checks the patient’s blood pressure and the baby’s heart rate. | |
| The team helps coordinate visits and other health care needs. | |
| Group18 | A woman meets with a group of other patients with similar due dates. |
| The woman has time alone with her maternity care provider to check the baby’s heart rate and discuss any issues. | |
| The majority of the visit is done with all of the women together. | |
| Telehealth19 | A woman meets with her maternity care provider through a phone call or video from her home or other convenient location. |
| The woman checks her own blood pressure and the baby’s heart rate, and shares this information with her provider. | |
| Home visits20 | A woman meets with a nurse in her home. |
| The nurse checks the patient’s blood pressure and the baby’s heart rate. | |
| The nurse helps to coordinate other visits and care instructions. | |
| Peer support21 | A woman is connected with another pregnant woman by the health care team. |
| The women communicate and provide support to each other during the pregnancy, in addition to receiving prenatal care. | |
To assess preferences for visit number, we asked women, “if you were given a choice, how many prenatal care visits would you prefer in pregnancy.” For alternative visit models, women were specifically asked how likely they would be to participate in each of the models (extremely unlikely to likely), and how many of their prenatal care visits they would want with this model (none, a few, half, most, all). For between-visit contact, we asked if patients would “want contact with your care team between your prenatal visits,” and if so, the kind of contact (e.g. phone, text message, online portal), with whom (e.g. health care provider, nurse), and scheduled verses unscheduled. To assess comfort with home monitoring skills, we asked patients, “if a nurse showed you how to, how comfortable would you be checking your weight, blood pressure and fetal heart tones (baby’s heartbeat)” (very uncomfortable to very comfortable). Additionally, we included validated items assessing patients’ demographic characteristics (from the U.S. Census),22 pregnancy history,23,24 and pregnancy experiences. We assessed overall satisfaction by asking: “how satisfied were you with your prenatal care?” Prior work has demonstrated that the majority of patients report high satisfaction with their prenatal care.25–27 We defined maternity care provider broadly to include Obstetrician/Gynecologists, Family Medicine physicians, and Certified Nurse Midwives.
Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Missing data were less than 5% for all questions and were not imputed. We analyzed patients based on their preferred visit number in comparison to prenatal care recommendations as currently outlined by The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which recommends that low-risk women see a health care provider individually in a clinic or hospital 12–14 times during pregnancy.15 We therefore examined three groups: patients who preferred <12 visits, 12–14 visits, or >14 visits. Comparisons between these groups were made using χ2 for categorical variables and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Analyses were performed using STATA-IC, version 15. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05 with two-sided tests.
Results:
Of the 590 births over the study period, 253 (43%) women were unavailable for the survey. Of the remaining 337 women, five (1%) did not speak English, leaving 332 eligible women. Of those eligible for the survey, 300 agreed to participate, for a response rate of 90% (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Schematic of survey participation.
The mean age of participants was 30.4±5.3 years. Most patients were white, had private insurance, and were married. The majority of patients were low-risk primiparas who had a vaginal birth. Almost all patients were satisfied with their prenatal care experience (Table 2).
Table 2.
Patient characteristics by preferred number of prenatal care visits
| Characteristic | All patients (n=300) | <12 visits (n=188) | 12–14 visits (n=66) | >14 visits (n=46) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years* | 30.4±5.3 | 30.5±5 | 29.5±6 | 31.3±6 | 0.24 |
| Hispanic | 11 (4) | 7 (4) | 2 (3) | 2 (4) | 0.94 |
| Race | 0.01 | ||||
| Asian | 22 (7) | 14 (7) | 5 (8) | 3 (7) | |
| Black/African American | 44 (15) | 28 (15) | 9 (14) | 7 (15) | |
| Hispanic/Latino | 6 (2) | 4 (2) | 0 (0) | 2 (4) | |
| White | 210 (70) | 135 (72) | 41 (62) | 34 (74) | |
| Multiracial | 13 (4) | 4 (2) | 9 (13) | 0 (0) | |
| Prefer not to report | 5 (2) | 3 (2) | 2 (3) | 0 (0) | |
| Insurance | 0.03 | ||||
| Public | 87 (29) | 46 (24) | 25 (38) | 16 (35) | |
| Private | 212 (71) | 142 (76) | 41 (62) | 29 (63) | |
| None | 1 (0.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | |
| Relationship status | 0.44 | ||||
| Married | 215 (72) | 141 (75) | 43 (65) | 31 (67) | |
| In a relationship | 49 (17) | 26 (14) | 16 (24) | 7 (15) | |
| Single | 29 (10) | 17 (9) | 5 (8) | 7 (15) | |
| Separated/Divorced/Widowed | 4 (1) | 5 (3) | 2 (3) | 1 (2) | |
| Parity | 0.64 | ||||
| Primiparous | 212 (71) | 132 (70) | 45 (68) | 35 (76) | |
| Multiparous | 88 (29) | 56 (30) | 21 (32) | 11 (24) | |
| High-risk pregnancy | 0.06 | ||||
| Yes | 54 (18) | 30 (16) | 10 (15) | 14 (30) | |
| No | 246 (82) | 158 (84) | 66 (85) | 32 (70) | |
| Antepartum hospitalization | 0.08 | ||||
| Yes | 14 (5) | 10 (5) | 0 (0) | 4 (9) | |
| No | 286 (95) | 178 (95) | 66 (100) | 42 (91) | |
| Delivery type | 0.69 | ||||
| Vaginal | 201 (67) | 123 (65) | 47 (71) | 31 (67) | |
| Cesarean | 99 (33) | 65 (35) | 19 (29) | 15 (33) | |
| Satisfied/very satisfied with prenatal care experience | 290 (97) | 181 (96) | 64 (97) | 45 (98) | 0.21 |
Data presented as n (%) unless otherwise noted
Mean±SD
The median desired number of prenatal care visits over the course of pregnancy was 10 (IQR 9–12). When compared to the recommendations for 12–14 total prenatal care visits during pregnancy, most patients desired fewer visits, though almost a quarter desired the same number of visits, and a few desired more visits (Figure 2). A higher proportion of patients with private insurance preferred <12 visits (<12: 76%, 12–14: 62%, >14: 63%). Preference for visit number differed by race and insurance type, but there were no differences in preference for visit number by age, parity, relationship status, number of high-risk patients, antepartum hospitalization, delivery type, or prenatal care satisfaction between groups (Table 2).
Figure 2.
Current recommendations for prenatal and postpartum care over the pregnancy episode compared to patient preferences and percent preferring each model. *Visit is desired by patients but is not part of routine practice. Numbers in gray boxes indicate weeks of gestation. PP, postpartum.
The majority of patients preferred to have contact with their care team between prenatal visits [84%, 95% CI (79–88%)]. Most women desired either scheduled contact between visits [40%, 95% CI (26–37%)] or a combination of scheduled and unscheduled contact [39%, 95% CI (34–45%)]. Patients preferred contacts between visits be conducted by phone or through the electronic medical record portal more than text messages or home visits. Most patients preferred between visit contact be completed with a nurse [n=225 (75%), 95% CI (70–80%)] or health care provider [n=168 (56%), 95% CI (50–61%)]. There were no differences in desired between-visit contact by patient preference for number of prenatal care visits (Table 3).
Table 3.
Patient-reported preferences for prenatal and postpartum care by preferred visit number
| Preferences | All patients (n=300) | <12 visits (n=188) | 12–14 visits (n=66) | >14 visits (n=46) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prenatal Care | |||||
| Desire for contact between visits | 253 (84) | 154 (81) | 56 (84) | 43 (93) | 0.14 |
| Scheduled | 38 (15) | 25 (16) | 6 (10) | 7 (16) | |
| Unscheduled | 95 (38) | 61 (39) | 17 (30) | 17 (39) | 0.42 |
| Both | 120 (47) | 68 (44) | 33 (59) | 19 (44) | |
| Comfort with remote monitoring | |||||
| Weight | 273 (91) | 169 (90) | 61 (92) | 43 (93) | 0.83 |
| Blood pressure | 246 (82) | 155 (82) | 53 (80) | 38 (82) | 0.86 |
| Fetal heart tones | 204 (68) | 126 (67) | 47 (71) | 31 (67) | 0.92 |
| Likelihood of using alternative visit model | |||||
| Individual | 281 (94) | 180 (96) | 62 (94) | 39 (84) | 0.02 |
| Pregnancy medical home | 217 (72) | 132 (70) | 55 (83) | 30 (65) | 0.06 |
| Home visit | 207 (69) | 122 (65) | 51 (77) | 34 (73) | 0.13 |
| Peer support | 146 (48) | 84 (45) | 35 (53) | 27 (59) | 0.17 |
| Telemedicine | 142 (47) | 91 (48) | 32 (48) | 19 (41) | 0.67 |
| Group | 139 (46) | 86 (46) | 32 (48) | 21 (46) | 0.92 |
| Postpartum Care | |||||
| Postpartum visits, n* | 2.7±1.1 | 2.4±1.0 | 2.8±1.1 | 3.4±1.2 | <0.01 |
| Postpartum visit timing | 0.17 | ||||
| <1 week | 85 (28) | 49 (26) | 17 (26) | 19 (41) | |
| 1–3 weeks | 157 (53) | 98 (52) | 36 (55) | 23 (50) | |
| 4–6 weeks | 57 (19) | 40 (21) | 13 (20) | 4 (9) | |
| >6 weeks | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
Data presented as n (%) unless otherwise noted
Mean±SD
Patients were most likely to use individual care models (94%), but over half of patients would also consider using pregnancy medical homes (72%) and home visits (69%) for prenatal care. Though most patients expressed a preference for having the majority of their visits be individual (88%), some patients would consider alternative care models for the majority of their prenatal visits, including pregnancy medical homes (44%), home visits (37%), group visits (28%), telemedicine (24%), and peer support (23%). (Data not shown.) Patients who desired >14 prenatal visits were less likely to prefer traditional visits than patients who desired 12–14 visits or <12 visits. There were no other differences in visit type by desired visit number or patient characteristics including age, race, insurance, parity, or satisfaction with prenatal care (Table 3).
Many patients reported comfort with remote monitoring skills, including measuring weight (91%) and blood pressure (82%) and checking fetal heart tones (68%). There were no differences in remote monitoring comfort by desired visit number or patient characteristics including age, race, insurance, or parity (Table 3).
The majority of patients (91%) preferred at least two postpartum visits after delivery, with 44% of patients desiring at least three postpartum visits. Most patients (81%) preferred the first postpartum visit be scheduled within three weeks after delivery—28% desired a visit within one week following discharge and 53% (n=159) desired a visit one to three weeks after discharge. Only 19% of patients preferred their first visit be four to six weeks after delivery, and no patients preferred a visit six weeks after delivery. While a similar number of patients desired an individual visit (57%) or home visit (55%) for their first postpartum visit, most preferred individual visits with their health care provider (69%) for subsequent visits, with fewer women desiring home visits (39%) or other alternative visit types following the initial visit. Primiparas desired more postpartum visits than multiparas (3 vs. 2, p=0.02). There were no other significant differences by age, race, insurance status, or delivery type. Patients who desired more antepartum visits also preferred a higher median number of postpartum visits [>14 visits: 3 (IQR 2–5); 12–14 visits: 2 (IQR 2–3); <12 visits: 2 (IQR 2–3)].
Discussion:
Our study suggests that current outpatient prenatal and postpartum care does not reflect some patients’ preferences. Specifically, most women in our cohort reported a preference for fewer scheduled prenatal care visits, with additional between-visit contact points. Many women would consider alternative prenatal visit types for some of their visits, but prefer the majority of their care to be delivered through individual visits. Finally, over 90% of women reported a desire for multiple postpartum visits, sooner after delivery.
Our study population was from a single, suburban academic center and included predominantly white, privately insured patients. Given the homogenous demographics of our sample, it is possible that even greater variation in patient preferences exists across the country. Future work is needed to define the preferences of various populations, all of which should be incorporated into prenatal care redesign.
Patient preferences should be integrated into care delivery guidelines; however, safety, (i.e. ensuring patients’ medical and social needs are adequately met) must also be considered. Though guidelines for prenatal and postpartum care were developed without supporting evidence,28 studies have since demonstrated the safety and acceptability of reduced prenatal visit schedules and alternative care models.11,18,26,29,30
Although the majority of patients in our study preferred fewer antenatal visits, two other groups emerged in our study: those who desired 1) the same number, and 2) more prenatal visits than currently recommended. Patients who desired more antenatal care also desired more postpartum visits, suggesting some patients may be high-utilizers throughout pregnancy. Few other identifiable differences existed between groups aside from slight, clinically insignificant variation by race and insurance status, making it difficult to identify these women a priori. Many elements of prenatal care delivery lack sufficient evidence to support one single approach. Rather than suggesting a one-size-fits-all prenatal care plan for women, we believe tailored approaches that incorporate women’s preferences with medical and social needs through shared decision-making can optimize costs, outcomes, and patient experience.
Delivering care that does not improve outcomes is by definition low-value.31 Given the established safety of reduced visit schedules, and that the majority of patients prefer fewer visits, current prenatal care delivery recommendations for 12–14 visits are likely low-value for patients, health care providers, and health systems. Unnecessary prenatal care is an opportunity cost for patients who must miss work or find childcare, and may reduce access by taking appointments away from patients who need them. Still, comprehensive definitions of value must also include patient-centered outcomes, including care satisfaction. For the 37% of patients in our study who prefer more frequent antenatal visits, additional contact points may provide needed support and improve adherence to recommended services.
Flexible care models may be important for maintaining patient satisfaction. Over 80% of patients in our survey desired contact with their care team between visits. The majority of patients also reported comfort with remote monitoring for weight, blood pressure, and fetal heart tones. These findings are consistent with the OB Nest connected care model,32 which includes a reduced visit schedule, remote monitoring, and nurse care coordination. A randomized controlled trial of OB Nest versus usual care demonstrated equal pregnancy outcomes with higher patient satisfaction.26 Still, this trial was conducted in a homogenous patient population, emphasizing the need for future studies in diverse groups. Other modalities such as telemedicine, community health workers, and group prenatal care may offer similar flexibility for patients with different needs and preferences.12,33–35 Early data suggests these models are both preferred by patients and reduce costs, providing a rare “double win” for health care finances and patient-centered outcomes.
Finally, our findings of postpartum care preferences are consistent with recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for comprehensive postpartum care, including more frequent postpartum visits, sooner after delivery.2 Most women in our study, regardless of age or parity, desired at least two visits beginning before three weeks postpartum. Still, a single postpartum visit at 4–6 weeks remains standard at many institutions.3,4 Home visits, which were acceptable for the first postpartum visit for the majority of patients in our study, may be a promising modality for improving postpartum support without increasing the clinical burden of outpatient clinics or stress on new moms and families. These programs have been successfully implemented in the United States for patients with Medicaid and private insurance, but are not yet considered standard of care.20 Our findings should be interpreted in light of the high postpartum follow-up rate in our hospital system: 88% compared to the national average of 60%.36,37 Postpartum preferences in our population may differ if higher attendance is because patients desire more care, have fewer barriers to postpartum care, or perceive the care delivered to be particularly valuable. Understanding how these preferences extrapolate to populations with poorer attendance and different demographics can guide efforts to support the most vulnerable patients.
Our study has several limitations. First, the survey was conducted at a single suburban academic center, where the majority of patients are white, have private insurance, and are married. Understanding how urban/rural location, insurance, marital status, and racial/ethnic identities impact preferences will be an important part of tailoring care across a variety of settings beyond our institution. Including underserved women and women of racial/ethnic minority groups will be particularly important given the disparities in care access and outcomes seen in our current system.1,38 Additionally, our survey instrument has not been previously validated. As no other available instrument was available, we based our questions on existing literature and expert opinion, and used rigorous methods including review by multiple survey experts and piloting with patients to mitigate potential biases. We were unable to collect demographic information on the women who were unavailable for our survey; however, as our sampled group matches the general characteristics of our hospital’s patient population, we believe we have a representative group. Finally, we collected limited sociodemographic data in the setting of this quality improvement work. Future studies should explore social determinants of health that may influence patient preferences.
Future work will explore how to best capture the preferences and medical/social needs of diverse patients to design tailored prenatal and postpartum care plans. Right-sizing prenatal care—matching patients’ needs with services delivered—will be an important next step in preventing both overutilization of unnecessary services and underutilization of valuable care. Next steps will also need to incorporate providers’ perspectives, including barriers and facilitators to adopting more flexible care models. Considering over 98% of the 4 million women who give birth each year receive prenatal care, improving prenatal care delivery has huge implications for women’s health, patient-centered outcomes, and health expenditures across the country.1 By abandoning a “one-size-fits-all” approach to maternity care, we can ensure every patient has access to high-value, patient-centered care that works in the context of their lives and communities.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements:
The authors thank Holly Tumbarello for her assistance with recruitment and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology for their financial support of survey administration. The authors also thank Sarah Block for her contributions to the editing and submission of this manuscript, and Dr. Jennifer Barber for her assistance with the development of the survey used in this manuscript. Ms. Block and Dr. Barber are employed by the University of Michigan and did not receive any additional compensation for their contributions.
Financial support: Support for this project came from the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation Policy Sprint Funding Award and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan. Michele Heisler is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), grant P30 DK092926. Michelle Moniz is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), grant K08 HS025465.
Financial Disclosure
Vanessa K. Dalton disclosed receiving funding for research from The Medical Letter, Bayer, AHRQ, and the Arnold Foundation NIH HRSA American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation Anonymous donor. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Each author has confirmed compliance with the journal’s requirements for authorship.
References
- 1.Osterman MJK, Martin JA. Timing and Adequacy of Prenatal Care in the United States, 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018;67:1–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.American College of Obsetetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 736: Optimizing Postpartum Care. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131:e140–e150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Michigan Quality Improvement Consortium. Routine Prenatal and Postnatal Care. Available at: http://www.mqic.org/pdf/2018_mqic_routine_prenatal_and_postnatal_care_cpg.pdf. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
- 4.Kaiser Permanente Guideline Oversight Group. Prenatal Care Screening and Testing Guideline. Available at: https://wa.kaiserpermanente.org/static/pdf/public/guidelines/prenatal.pdf. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
- 5.Viswanathan M, Treiman KA, Kish-Doto J, Middleton JC, Coker-Schwimmer EJ, Nicholson WK. Folic Acid Supplementation for the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects: An Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2017;317:190–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.van Velzen CL, Ket JCF, van de Ven PM, Blom NA, Haak MC. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of second-trimester screening for prenatal detection of congenital heart defects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;140:137–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Alfirevic Z, Navaratnam K, Mujezinovic F. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;9:CD003252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Iwarsson E, Jacobsson B, Dagerhamn J, Davidson T, Bernabe E, Heibert Arnlind M. Analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 in a general pregnant population and in a high risk population - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96:7–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Alldred SK, Takwoingi Y, Guo B, Pennant M, Deeks JJ, Neilson JP, et al. First trimester serum tests for Down’s syndrome screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD011975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Li-Zhen L, Yun X, Xiao-Dong Z, Shu-Bin H, Zi-Lian W, Adrian Sandra D, et al. Evaluation of guidelines on the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review. BMJ Open 2019;9:e023014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Dowswell T, Carroli G, Duley L, Gates S, Gülmezoglu AM, Khan-Neelofur D, et al. Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD000934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Urban Institute. Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Evaluation: Year 5 Project Synthesis. Available at: https://downloads.cms.gov/files/cmmi/strongstart-prenatal-finalevalrpt-v1.pdf. Retrieved Septemer 19, 2019.
- 13.NC Medicaid Division of Health Benefits. Pregnancy Medical Home. Available at: https://medicaid.ncdhhs.gov/providers/programs-services/family-planning-and-maternity/pregnancy-medical-home. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
- 14.ACOG Committee Opinion No. 731: Group Prenatal Care. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131:e104–e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kilpatrick SJ, Papile L-A, Macones GA, eds. Guidelines for Perinatal Care 8th ed Elk Grove Village, IL/Washington, D.C: American Academy of Pediatrics/The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2006;60:301–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, Aarts J, Barr PJ, Berger Z, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ 2017;359:j4891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Urban Institute. Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Evaluation: Year 1 Annual Report. Available at: https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/strongstart-enhancedprenatal-yr1evalrpt.pdf. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
- 19.Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). Telemedicine and Telehealth. Available at: https://www.healthit.gov/topic/health-it-initiatives/telemedicine-and-telehealth. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
- 20.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Health Resources & Services Administration Maternal & Child Health: Home Visiting. Available at: https://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-health-initiatives/home-visiting-overview. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
- 21.Mead S, MacNeil C. Peer Support: What Makes it Unique? International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 2006;10:29–37. [Google Scholar]
- 22.U.S. Census Bureau. Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey. Available at: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/operations/planned-questions-2020-acs.pdf. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
- 23.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Phase 8 Standard Questions. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/prams/pdf/questionnaire/Phase-8-Standard-Core-Questions-508.pdf. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
- 24.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PRAMS Questionnaires. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/prams/questionnaire.htm. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
- 25.Heaman MI, Sword WA, Akhtar-Danesh N, Bradford A, Tough S, Janssen PA, et al. Quality of prenatal care questionnaire: instrument development and testing. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Butler Tobah YS, LeBlanc A, Branda ME, Inselman JW, Morris MA, Ridgeway JL, et al. Randomized comparison of a reduced-visit prenatal care model enhanced with remote monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;221:638.e1–638.e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Littlefield VM, Adams BN. Patient participation in alternative perinatal care: impact on satisfaction and health locus of control. Res Nurs Health 1987;10:139–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M. Assessing the role and effectiveness of prenatal care: history, challenges, and directions for future research. Public Health Rep 2001;116:306–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Berrien K, Ollendorff A, Menard MK. Pregnancy Medical Home Care Pathways Improve Quality of Perinatal Care and Birth Outcomes. N C Med J 2015;76:263–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mazzoni SE, Carter EB. Group prenatal care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:552–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.de Mooij MJM, Hodny RL, O’Neil DA, Gardner MR, Beaver M, Brown AT, et al. OB Nest: Reimagining Low-Risk Prenatal Care. Mayo Clin Proc 2018;93:458–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Srinivas SK, Durnwald C, Line L, et al. “Safe Start”: A community health worker program that improves perinatal outcomes in high risk women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220 (Suppl):S208. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Barbour KD, Nelson R, Esplin MS, Varner M, Clark EAS. A randomized trial of prenatal care using telemedicine for low-risk pregnancies: patient-related cost and time savings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216 (Suppl):S499. [Google Scholar]
- 35.van den Heuvel JF, Groenhof TK, Veerbeek JH, et al. eHealth as the Next-Generation Perinatal Care: An Overview of the Literature. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:e202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Bryant AS, Haas JS, McElrath TF, McCormick MC. Predictors of compliance with the postpartum visit among women living in healthy start project areas. Matern Child Health J 2006;10:511–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Bennett WL, Chang HY, Levine DM, et al. Utilization of primary and obstetric care after medically complicated pregnancies: an analysis of medical claims data. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29:636–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.McKinney J, Keyser L, Clinton S, Pagliano C. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 736: Optimizing Postpartum Care. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:784–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.