Literature DB >> 10947550

An economic evaluation comparing two schedules of antenatal visits.

J Henderson1, T Roberts, J Sikorski, J Wilson, S Clement.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an economic evaluation comparing a traditional antenatal visiting schedule (traditional care) with a reduced schedule of visits (new style care) for women at low risk of complications.
METHODS: Economic evaluation using the results of a randomised controlled trial, the Antenatal Care Project. This took place between 1993 and 1994 in antenatal clinics in South East London and involved 2794 women at low risk of complications.
RESULTS: The estimated baseline costs to the UK National Health Service (NHS) for the traditional schedule were 544 Pounds per woman, of which 251 Pounds occurred antenatally, with a range of 327-1203 Pounds per woman. The estimated baseline costs to the NHS for the reduced visit schedule was 563 Pounds per woman, of which 225 Pounds occurred antenatally, with a range of 274-1741 Pounds per woman. Savings from new style care that arose antenatally were offset by the greater numbers of babies in this group who required special or intensive care. Sensitivity analyses based on possible variations in unit costs and resource use and modelled postnatal stay showed considerable variation and substantial overlap in costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of antenatal care involving fewer routine visits for women at low risk of complications are unlikely to result in savings to the Health Service. In addition, women who had the reduced schedule of care reported greater dissatisfaction with their care and poorer psychosocial outcomes which argues against reducing numbers of antenatal visits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10947550     DOI: 10.1177/135581960000500203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy        ISSN: 1355-8196


  6 in total

Review 1.  Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

Authors:  Therese Dowswell; Guillermo Carroli; Lelia Duley; Simon Gates; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Dina Khan-Neelofur; Gilda Gp Piaggio
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

2.  The pre-eclampsia community guideline (PRECOG): how to screen for and detect onset of pre-eclampsia in the community.

Authors:  Fiona Milne; Chris Redman; James Walker; Philip Baker; Julian Bradley; Carol Cooper; Michael de Swiet; Gillian Fletcher; Mervi Jokinen; Deirdre Murphy; Catherine Nelson-Piercy; Vicky Osgood; Stephen Robson; Andrew Shennan; Angela Tuffnell; Sara Twaddle; Jason Waugh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-03-12

Review 3.  Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

Authors:  Therese Dowswell; Guillermo Carroli; Lelia Duley; Simon Gates; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Dina Khan-Neelofur; Gilda Piaggio
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-07-16

Review 4.  Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models.

Authors:  Andrew Symon; Jan Pringle; Soo Downe; Vanora Hundley; Elaine Lee; Fiona Lynn; Alison McFadden; Jenny McNeill; Mary J Renfrew; Mary Ross-Davie; Edwin van Teijlingen; Heather Whitford; Fiona Alderdice
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 5.  Fetal growth restriction and stillbirth: Biomarkers for identifying at risk fetuses.

Authors:  Victoria J King; Laura Bennet; Peter R Stone; Alys Clark; Alistair J Gunn; Simerdeep K Dhillon
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  A literature review on integrated perinatal care.

Authors:  Charo Rodríguez; Catherine des Rivières-Pigeon
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 5.120

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.