Group versus conventional antenatal care for women (Review)

Christine J. Catling, Nancy Medley, Maralyn Foureur, Clare Ryan, Nicky Leap, Alison Teate, Caroline S.E. Homer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Antenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model. Objectives: 1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies. 2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy. Main results: We included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943). Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes. No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth). Authors' conclusions: Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD007622
Pages (from-to)1-61
Number of pages61
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2015
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prenatal Care
Premature Birth
Confidence Intervals
Odds Ratio
Parturition
Perinatal Mortality
Breast Feeding
Preventive Health Services
Term Birth
Neonatal Intensive Care
Neonatal Intensive Care Units

Cite this

Catling, C. J., Medley, N., Foureur, M., Ryan, C., Leap, N., Teate, A., & Homer, C. S. E. (2015). Group versus conventional antenatal care for women (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(2), 1-61. [CD007622]. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007622.pub3
Catling, Christine J. ; Medley, Nancy ; Foureur, Maralyn ; Ryan, Clare ; Leap, Nicky ; Teate, Alison ; Homer, Caroline S.E. / Group versus conventional antenatal care for women (Review). In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015 ; Vol. 2015, No. 2. pp. 1-61.
@article{c56169cfc86a4e2e91da797a6b7773a0,
title = "Group versus conventional antenatal care for women (Review)",
abstract = "Background: Antenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model. Objectives: 1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies. 2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy. Main results: We included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95{\%} CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95{\%} CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943). Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95{\%} CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes. No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth). Authors' conclusions: Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42{\%} of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.",
keywords = "Female, Humans, Infant, Low Birth Weight, Infant, Newborn, Peer Group, Pregnancy, Premature Birth/epidemiology, Prenatal Care/methods, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Prenatal Care [methods], Infant, Premature Birth [epidemiology], Newborn",
author = "Catling, {Christine J.} and Nancy Medley and Maralyn Foureur and Clare Ryan and Nicky Leap and Alison Teate and Homer, {Caroline S.E.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD007622.pub3",
language = "English",
volume = "2015",
pages = "1--61",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
number = "2",

}

Catling, CJ, Medley, N, Foureur, M, Ryan, C, Leap, N, Teate, A & Homer, CSE 2015, 'Group versus conventional antenatal care for women (Review)', Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2015, no. 2, CD007622, pp. 1-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007622.pub3

Group versus conventional antenatal care for women (Review). / Catling, Christine J.; Medley, Nancy; Foureur, Maralyn; Ryan, Clare; Leap, Nicky; Teate, Alison; Homer, Caroline S.E.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2015, No. 2, CD007622, 2015, p. 1-61.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Group versus conventional antenatal care for women (Review)

AU - Catling, Christine J.

AU - Medley, Nancy

AU - Foureur, Maralyn

AU - Ryan, Clare

AU - Leap, Nicky

AU - Teate, Alison

AU - Homer, Caroline S.E.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Background: Antenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model. Objectives: 1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies. 2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy. Main results: We included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943). Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes. No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth). Authors' conclusions: Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.

AB - Background: Antenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model. Objectives: 1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies. 2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy. Main results: We included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943). Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes. No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth). Authors' conclusions: Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Infant, Low Birth Weight

KW - Infant, Newborn

KW - Peer Group

KW - Pregnancy

KW - Premature Birth/epidemiology

KW - Prenatal Care/methods

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

KW - Prenatal Care [methods]

KW - Infant

KW - Premature Birth [epidemiology]

KW - Newborn

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84934312150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/group-versus-conventional-antenatal-care-women-4

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD007622.pub3

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD007622.pub3

M3 - Article

VL - 2015

SP - 1

EP - 61

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1469-493X

IS - 2

M1 - CD007622

ER -