4.6 Article

A comparison of four prenatal care indices in birth outcome models: Comparable results for predicting small-for-gestational-age outcome but different results for preterm birth or infant mortality

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 438-445

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.001

关键词

Prenatal care utilization; Small-for-gestational-age; Preterm birth; Infant mortality; Birth outcomes; Perinatal epidemiology

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  2. Chicago Center for Health Promotion Economics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Several different indices of prenatal care have been used in birth outcome models to analyze the relationship between the adequacy of prenatal care and low birthweight, preterm birth, and infant mortality. This investigation compared the performance of the Kessner index, the GINDEX, the adequacy of prenatal care utilization (APNCU) and certain variants of the APNCU in such outcome models. Study Design and Setting: Data from National Center for Health Statistics' (NCHS) Linked Birth and Infant Death Cohort files were used in multivariate logistic regression models to estimate adjusted odds ratios comparing different prenatal care utilization categories for each index. Results: When the indices were used in small-for-gestational-age outcome models, the conclusions suggested by the various indices were similar. In models for preterm birth and infant mortality, by contrast, the various indices gave widely differing results. Unlike the use of other indices, the use of the GINDEX paradoxically suggested that birth outcomes were better in the inadequate, intermediate, and intensive categories than in the adequate category. Conclusion: The conclusions drawn concerning the association between prenatal care utilization and small-for-gestational-age seem relatively robust in the sense of being consistent across indices. In analyzing associations between prenatal care and preterm birth or infant mortality, care must be taken in choosing indices, because results differ substantially across indices. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据