Frequency of Prenatal Care Visits: Protocol to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Prenatal Care Schedules.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal care, one of the most common preventive care services in the United States, endeavors to improve pregnancy outcomes through evidence-based screenings and interventions. Despite the prevalence of prenatal care and its importance to maternal and infant health, there are several debates about the best methods of prenatal care delivery, including the most appropriate schedule frequency and content of prenatal visits. Current US national guidelines recommend that low-risk individuals receive a standard schedule of 12 to 14 in-office visits, a care delivery model that has remained unchanged for almost a century. OBJECTIVE: In early 2020, to mitigate individuals' exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, prenatal care providers implemented new paradigms that altered the schedule frequency, interval, and modality (eg, telemedicine) of how prenatal care services were offered. In this paper, we describe the development of a core outcome set (COS) that can be used to evaluate the effect of the frequency of prenatal care schedules on maternal and infant outcomes. METHODS: We will systematically review the literature to identify previously reported outcomes important to individuals who receive prenatal care and the people who care for them. Stakeholders with expertise in prenatal care delivery (ie, patients or family members, health care providers, and public health professionals and policy makers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in a web-based survey using a 3-round Delphi process. A digital consensus meeting will be held for a group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final COS. RESULTS: The Delphi survey was initiated in July 2022 with invited 71 stakeholders. A digital consensus conference was conducted on October 11, 2022. Data are currently under analysis with plans to submit them in a subsequent manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: More research about the optimal schedule frequency and modality for prenatal care delivery is needed. Standardizing outcomes that are measured and reported in evaluations of the recommended prenatal care schedules will assist evidence synthesis and results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Overall, this COS will expand the consistency and patient-centeredness of reported outcomes for various prenatal care delivery schedules and modalities, hopefully improving the overall efficacy of recommended care delivery for pregnant people and their families. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43962.

Televisits Compared With In-Person Visits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare benefits and harms of televisits and in-person visits in people receiving routine antenatal care. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials, four nonrandomized comparative studies, and one survey compared visit types between 2004 and 2020, three of which were conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Number, timing, and mode of televisits and who provided care varied across studies. Low-strength evidence from studies comparing hybrid (televisits and in-person visits) and all in-person visits did not indicate differences in rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission of the newborn (summary odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28) or preterm births (summary OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03). However, the studies with stronger, although still statistically nonsignificant, associations between use of hybrid visits and preterm birth compared the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic eras, confounding the association. There is low-strength evidence that satisfaction with overall antenatal care was greater in people who were pregnant and receiving hybrid visits. Other outcomes were sparsely reported. CONCLUSION: People who are pregnant may prefer hybrid televisits and in-person visits. Although there is no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes between hybrid visits and in-person visits, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate most outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021272287.

Designing your patient's prenatal care "PATH": Recommendations for maternity care professionals based on MiPATH

The article provides recommendations for maternity care professionals when designing their patient's prenatal care Plan for Appropriate Tailored Healthcare (PATH). Topics discussed include evidence supporting prenatal care recommendations, information on Michigan PATH (MiPATH) panel process, and MiPATH panel recommendations which includes screening for medical, social, and structural determinants of health, telemedicine, and supporting for social and structural determinants.

"Mourning the Experience of What Should Have Been": Experiences of Peripartum Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may significantly affect the peripartum experience; however, little is known about the perceptions of women who gave birth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the purpose of our study was to describe the peripartum experiences of women who gave birth during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, we collected survey data from a convenience sample of postpartum women recruited through social media. Participants were 18 years of age or older, lived in the United States, gave birth after February 1, 2020, and could read English. This study was part of the COVID-19 Maternal Attachment, Mood, Ability, and Support study, which was a larger study that collected survey data describing maternal mental health and breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper presents findings from the two free-text items describing peripartum experiences. Using the constant comparative method, responses were thematically analyzed to identify and collate major and minor themes. RESULTS: 371 participants responded to at least one free-text item. Five major themes emerged: (1) Heightened emotional distress; (2) Adverse breastfeeding experiences; (3) Unanticipated hospital policy changes shifted birthing plans; (4) Expectation vs. reality: "mourning what the experience should have been;" and (5) Surprising benefits of the COVID-19 pandemic to the delivery and postpartum experience. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Peripartum women are vulnerable to heightened stress induced by COVID-19 pandemic sequalae. During public health crises, peripartum women may need additional resources and support to improve their mental health, wellbeing, and breastfeeding experiences.