| Literature DB >> 25976089 |
Nolwenn Le Meur1,2, Fei Gao3,4, Sahar Bayat5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are a vulnerable population. Although regular follow-ups are recommended during pregnancy, not all pregnant women seek care. This pilot study wanted to assess whether the integration of data from administrative health information systems and socio-economic features allows identifying disparities in prenatal care trajectories.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25976089 PMCID: PMC4436876 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-0857-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Shift between ambulatory healthcare providers during pregnancy. In France, visits to physicians and imaging centers are predominant during the first two trimesters and then they decrease in favor of midwives’ interventions at the end of pregnancy
Fig. 2The ten most frequent patterns of antenatal care trajectories. The height of the horizontal bar represents the proportion of pregnant women in the sequence. Overall, the ten most frequent patterns in antenatal care represent 82.6 % of the studied population. The blue colors represent the level of care. Light blue segments are for “Absence” of care, medium blue are for intermediate level, and dark blue are for high level of care consumption
Fig. 3Homogeneous groups of prenatal care trajectories. Each panel represents a group of homogeneous trajectories computed based on clustering analysis. Each cluster includes women with similar sequences of care trajectories (representing specific visits during pregnancy). Cluster 1 gathers women with mostly high level of care consumption. Cluster 2 includes women with low or absence of care. Cluster 3 includes women with mostly intermediate level of care. Each horizontal line (Y-axis) represents a pregnant woman. The X-axis represents the gestational month
Univariate analysis describing how each cluster is related to individual characteristics of the population under study
| Clusters | “High” level | “Absence” level | “Intermediate” level |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (Cluster 1) | (Cluster 2) | (Cluster 3) | |
| N = 296 | N = 546 | N = 1676 | ||
| Age (± sd) in years | 30.03 (4.71) | 28.86 (5.78) | 29.55 (+/−5.08) | 0.003* |
| CMUC (%) | ||||
| Yes | 40 (13.5) | 89 (16.4) | 230 (13.8) | 0.29** |
| No | 256 (86.5) | 454 (83.6) | 1441 (86.2) | |
| COCI | 0.37 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.409*** |
*: p-value of the ANOVA; **: p-value of the Fisher’s exact test; ***: p-value of the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
Results of the univariate analysis to select variables of interest for logistic regression modeling
| Variables | OR [IC95%] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| “High” level | “Absence” level | “Intermediate” level | |
| (Clusters 1 vs 2-3) | (Clusters 2 vs 1-3) | (Clusters 3 vs 1-2) | |
| N = 296 | N = 546 | N = 1676 | |
| Age | |||
| 14-20 year/old | 0.23 [0.1-0.58]** | 2.26 [1.6-3.2]*** | 0.74 [0.53-1.03]**** |
| 21-35 year/old | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| >35 year/old | NS | 1.29 [0.99-1.68]**** | 0.84 [0.67-1.07]**** |
| Population typea | |||
| Single women | NS | 1.34 [1.10-1.63]** | NS |
| Single mums | 0.77 [0.60-0.99]* | NS | 0.82 [0.69-0.97]* |
| Immigrants | 0.84 [0.73-1.20]**** | NS | NS |
| Education | |||
| 2 years after high school | 1.23 [0.96-1.59]**** | 0.78 [0.64-0.95]* | NS |
| University | 1.16 [0.68-1.13]**** | NS | NS |
| No Diploma | 0.63 [0.49-0.82]*** | 1.24 [1.02-1.51]* | NS |
| Technical Education | NS | NS | 0.87 [0.79-1.03]**** |
| Employment | |||
| Unemployed | NS | 1.41 [1.16-1.71]*** | 0.79 [0.66-0.93]** |
| Self-employed | 1.36 [1.05-1.75]* | NS | 0.88 [0.74-1.04]**** |
| Precarious job | 1.18 [0.92-1.52]**** | 1.29 [1.06-1.57]** | 0.75 [0.63-0.89]** |
| Stable job | NS | 0.75 [0.61-0.91]** | 1.32 [1.12-1.57]*** |
| Labor force | NS | 0.72 [0.59-0.88]** | 1.28 [1.08-1.57]** |
| Blue-collar | NS | 1.24 [1.03-1.52]* | 0.89 [0.75-1.06]**** |
| White-collar | NS | 0.84 [0.69-1.02]**** | NS |
| Artisan | 1.29 [1.01-1.67]* | NS | 0.87 [0.73-1.03]**** |
| Housing | |||
| House built before 1949 | NS | 1.19 [0.97-1.44]**** | NS |
| House built after 1999 | 1.49 [1.16-1.92]** | 0.78 [0.64-0.95]* | NS |
| House | NS | NS | NS |
| Apartment | NS | NS | NS |
| Rent | NS | 1.14 [0.94-1.39]**** | NS |
| Low rent | 0.73 [0.57-0.94]* | NS | NS |
***p-value <0.001; **p-value <0.01; *p-value <0.05; ****p-value <0.25; NS: not selected p-value >0.25
a: Single mums: single mother per household; Single women: woman living on her own per household
Importance of education and employment status for pregnant women care trajectories
| Variables | OR [IC95%] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| “High” level | “Absence” level | “Intermediate” level | |
| (Clusters 1 vs 2-3) | (Clusters 2 vs 1-3) | (Clusters 3 vs 1-2) | |
| N = 296 | N = 546 | N = 1676 | |
| Age | |||
| 14-20 year/old | 0.25 [0.1-0.61]** | 2.17 [1.53-3.08]*** | NS |
| 21-35 year/old | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| >35 year/old | NS | 1.32 [1.01-1.72]* | NS |
| Population type | |||
| Single women | NS | 1.37 [1.10-1.70]** | 0.82 [0.68-0.99]* |
| Education | |||
| No Diploma | 0.71 [0.54-0.92]** | NS | NS |
| Technical Education | NS | NS | 0.81 [0.67-0.97]* |
| Employment | |||
| Unemployed | NS | 1.27 [1.03-1.55]* | 0.76 [0.63-0.93]** |
| Blue-collar | NS | 1.42 [1.15-1.73]*** | NS |
| Precarious job | NS | NS | 0.82 [0.69-0.98]* |
| Artisan | NS | NS | 0.79 [0.67-0.97]* |
| Housing | |||
| House built after 1999 | 1.34 [1.03-1.73]* | NS | NS |
The results of the logistic regression models describe how each cluster membership relates to specific covariates
***p-value <0.001; **p-value <0.01; *p-value <0.05; NS: not significant