Literature DB >> 18496751

Are prenatal care resources distributed efficiently across high-risk and low-risk mothers?

Sankar Mukhopadhyay1, Jeanne Wendel.   

Abstract

The Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement recommends reducing the number of prenatal care visits recommended for low-risk women, citing evidence from a randomized clinical trial indicating that the reduction would not adversely impact infant health. We investigate the implicit hypothesis that prenatal care resources are not distributed efficiently across high-risk and low-risk women. Using clinic-reported prenatal care and an inclusive measure of infant health, we report evidence indicating inefficient resource utilization: prenatal care only boosts infant health when mothers have specific pre-existing diagnoses, but women with high potential to benefit from care do not obtain more care than other women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18496751     DOI: 10.1007/s10754-008-9035-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ        ISSN: 1389-6563


  10 in total

1.  Impact of augmented prenatal care on birth outcomes of Medicaid recipients in New York City.

Authors:  T Joyce
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Reduction in neonatal intensive care unit admission rates in a Medicaid managed care program.

Authors:  Joseph A Stankaitis; Howard R Brill; Darlene M Walker
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.229

3.  The use of United States vital statistics in perinatal and obstetric research.

Authors:  Kenneth C Schoendorf; Amy M Branum
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Is prenatal care really ineffective? Or, is the 'devil' in the distribution?

Authors:  Karen Smith Conway; Partha Deb
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Health insurance, the quantity and quality of prenatal care, and infant health.

Authors:  R Kaestner
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.730

6.  Benefits and limitations of prenatal care: from counting visits to measuring content.

Authors:  D P Misra; B Guyer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-05-27       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  For every dollar spent--the cost-savings argument for prenatal care.

Authors:  J Huntington; F A Connell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-11-10       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Caring for our future: a report by the expert panel on the content of prenatal care.

Authors:  M G Rosen; I R Merkatz; J G Hill
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  A randomized trial of augmented prenatal care for multiple-risk, Medicaid-eligible African American women.

Authors:  L V Klerman; S L Ramey; R L Goldenberg; S Marbury; J Hou; S P Cliver
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Maternal health: does prenatal care make a difference?

Authors:  Karen Smith Conway; Andrea Kutinova
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.046

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  African American and Latino patient versus provider perceptions of determinants of prenatal care initiation.

Authors:  Allan A Johnson; Barbara D Wesley; M Nabil El-Khorazaty; Julie M Utter; Brinda Bhaskar; Barbara J Hatcher; Renee Milligan; Barbara K Wingrove; Leslie Richards; Margaret F Rodan; Haziel A Laryea
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2011-12
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.