Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2010 Oct 6:(10):CD000934.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000934.pub2.

Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy

Therese Dowswell  1 , Guillermo Carroli, Lelia Duley, Simon Gates, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Dina Khan-Neelofur, Gilda Gp Piaggio
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy

Therese Dowswell et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: The number of visits for antenatal (prenatal) care developed without evidence of how many visits are necessary. The content of each visit also needs evaluation.

Objectives: To compare the effects of antenatal care programmes with reduced visits for low-risk women with standard care.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010), reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.

Selection criteria: Randomised trials comparing a reduced number of antenatal visits, with or without goal-oriented care, with standard care.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently.

Main results: We included seven trials (more than 60,000 women): four in high-income countries with individual randomisation; three in low- and middle-income countries with cluster randomisation (clinics as the unit of randomisation). The number of visits for standard care varied, with fewer visits in low- and middle- income country trials. In studies in high-income countries, women in the reduced visits groups, on average, attended between 8.2 and 12 times. In low- and middle- income country trials, many women in the reduced visits group attended on fewer than five occasions, although in these trials the content as well as the number of visits was changed, so as to be more 'goal oriented'.Perinatal mortality was increased for those randomised to reduced visits rather than standard care, and this difference was borderline for statistical significance (five trials; risk ratio (RR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.31). In the subgroup analysis, for high-income countries the number of deaths was small (32/5108), and there was no clear difference between the groups (2 trials; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80); for low- and middle-income countries perinatal mortality was significantly higher in the reduced visits group (3 trials RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32). Reduced visits were associated with a reduction in admission to neonatal intensive care that was borderline for significance (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02). There were no clear differences between the groups for the other reported clinical outcomes.Women in all settings were less satisfied with the reduced visits schedule and perceived the gap between visits as too long. Reduced visits may be associated with lower costs.

Authors' conclusions: In settings with limited resources where the number of visits is already low, reduced visits programmes of antenatal care are associated with an increase in perinatal mortality compared to standard care, although admission to neonatal intensive care may be reduced. Women prefer the standard visits schedule. Where the standard number of visits is low, visits should not be reduced without close monitoring of fetal and neonatal outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Update of

Comment in

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Clement S, Candy B, Sikorski J, Wilson J, Smeeton N. Does reducing the frequency of routine antenatal visits have long term effects? Follow up of participants in a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1999;106(4):367–70. - PubMed
    2. Henderson J, Roberts T, Sikorski J, Wilson J, Clement S. An economic evaluation comparing two schedules of antenatal visits. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2000;5(2):69–75. - PubMed

    3. *

    4. Sikorski J, Wilson J, Clement S, Das S, Smeeton N. A randomised controlled trial comparing two schedules of antenatal visits: the antenatal care project. BMJ. 1996;312:546–53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Binstock MA, Wolde-Tsadik G. Alternative prenatal care. Impact of reduced visit frequency, focused visits and continuity of care. Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 1995;40:507–12. - PubMed
    1. McDuffie R, Bischoff K, Beck A, Orleans M. Does reducing the number of prenatal office visits for low-risk women result in increased use of other medical services? Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1997;90:68–70. - PubMed
    2. McDuffie R, Bischoff K, Cross J, Beck A. An evaluation of risk-based prenatal care: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1995;172:270.

    3. *

    4. McDuffie RS, Beck R, Bischoff K, Cross J, Orleans M. Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women. JAMA. 1996;275:847–51. - PubMed
    1. Walker DS, Koniak-Griffin D. Evaluation of a reduced-frequency prenatal visit schedule for low-risk women at a free-standing birthing center. Journal of Nurse Midwifery. 1997;42:295–303. - PubMed
    1. Villar J, Ba’aquel H, Piaggio G, Lumbiganon P, Belzian JM, Farnot U, et al. WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care. Lancet. 2001;357:1551–64. - PubMed
    2. Villar J, Bakketeig L, Donner A, Al-Mazrou Y, Ba’aqeel H, Belizan M, et al. The WHO Antenatal Care Randomised Controlled Trial: rationale and study design. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 1998;12(Suppl 2):27–58. - PubMed

    3. *

    4. Villar J, Merialdi M, Ba’aqeel H, Piaggio G, Lumbiganon P, Belizan JM, et al. Developments in antenatal care. XVIIIth European Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Athens, Greece. 2004 May 12-15.2004. p. 82.

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Berglund AC, Lindmark GC. Health services effects of a reduced routine programme for antenatal care. An area-based study. European Journal of Obstetric Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 1998;77:193–9. - PubMed
    1. Biro M, Waldenstrom U, Pannifex J. Team midwifery care in a tertiary level obstetric service: a randomized controlled trial. Birth. 2000;27(3):168–73. - PubMed
    1. Chambliss LR, Daly C, Medearis AL, Ames M, Kayne M, Paul R. The role of selection bias in comparing cesarean birth rates between physician and midwifery management. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1992;80(2):161–5. - PubMed
    1. Clement S, Sikorski J, Wilson J, Das S, Smeeton N. Women’s satisfaction with traditional and reduced antenatal visit schedules. Midwifery. 1996;12:120–8. - PubMed
    1. Flenady V. The maternity care study: a randomised controlled trial of a community midwifery service and standard shared care. Personal communication. 1998.

Additional references

    1. Bergsjo P, Villar J. Scientific basis for the content of routine antenatal care. II. Power to eliminate or alleviate adverse newborn outcomes; some special conditions and examinations. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 1997;76:15–25. - PubMed
    1. Carroli G, Rooney C, Villar J. How effective is antenatal care in preventing maternal mortality and serious morbidity? An overview of the evidence. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 2001;15(Suppl 1):1–42. - PubMed
    1. De Onis M, Villar J, Gülmezoglu M. Nutritional interventions to prevent intrauterine growth retardation: evidence from randomised controlled trials. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1998;52:S83–S93. - PubMed
    1. Gates S. Methodological Guidelines. Issue 2. The Editorial Team. Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. About the Cochrane Collaboration (Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs); 2005.
    1. Gülmezoglu M, De Onis M, Villar J. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent or treat impaired fetal growth. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey. 1997;52:139–49. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

    1. Carroli G, Villar J, Piaggio G, Khan-Neelofur D, Gulmezoglu M, Mugford M, et al. WHO Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of routine antenatal care. Lancet. 2001;357:1565–70. - PubMed
    1. Khan-Neelofur D, Gulmezoglu M, Villar J. Who should provide routine antenatal care for low risk women, and how often? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. WHO Antenatal Care Trial Research Group. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 1998;12(Suppl 2):7–26. - PubMed
    1. Villar J, Carroli G, Khan-Neelofur D, Piaggio GGP, Gülmezoglu AM. Patterns of routine antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2001;(Issue 4) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000934] - PubMed

    1. * Indicates the major publication for the study