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
. 2024 Feb;28(2):287-293.
doi: 10.1007/s10995-023-03812-3. Epub 2023 Nov 14.

Evaluating Standard of Care and Obstetrical Outcomes in a Reduced Contact Prenatal Care Model in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Affiliations

Evaluating Standard of Care and Obstetrical Outcomes in a Reduced Contact Prenatal Care Model in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Jenny Y Mei et al. Matern Child Health J. 2024 Feb.

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to investigate the impact of reduced contact prenatal care necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic on meeting standards of care and perinatal outcomes.

Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients in low-risk obstetrics clinic at a tertiary care county facility serving solely publicly insured patients comparing reduced in-person prenatal care (R) over 12 weeks with a control group (C) receiving traditional prenatal care who delivered prior.

Results: Total 90 patients in reduced contact (R) cohort were matched with controls (C). There were similar rates of standard prenatal care metrics between groups. Gestational age (GA) of anatomy ultrasound was later in R (p = 0.017). Triage visits and missed appointments were similar, though total number of visits (in-person and telehealth) was higher in R (p = 0.043). R group had higher GA at delivery (p = 0.001). Composite neonatal morbidity and length of stay were lower in R (p = 0.017, p = 0.048). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not otherwise differ between groups. Using Kotelchuck Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization index, R had higher rates of adequate prenatal care (45.6% R vs. 24.4% C, p = 0.005).

Discussion: Our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of a hybrid, reduced schedule prenatal schedule to traditional prenatal scheduling. In a reduced contact prenatal care model, more patients met criteria for adequate prenatal care, likely due to higher attendance of telehealth visits. These findings raise the question of revising the prenatal care model to mitigate disparities in disadvantaged populations.

Keywords: Pregnancy outcomes; Reduced contact prenatal care; Standard of care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Ballantyne JW. A plea for a pro-maternity hospital. British Medical Journal. 1901;1:813–814. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.2101.813. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ballantyne JW. Visits to the wards of the pro-maternity hospital: A vision of the twentieth century. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1901;43:596.
    1. Berg CJ, Callaghan WM, Syverson C, Henderson Z. Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States 1998 to 2005. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2010;116(6):1302–1309. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fdfb11. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boelig RC, Saccone G, Bellussi F, Berghella V. MFM guidance for COVID-19. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM. 2020;2(2):100106. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100106. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;221(6):638e1–638e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.034. - DOI - PubMed