Search

Importance: An increasing body of evidence suggests equivalent if not improved postpartum outcomes of in-person group prenatal care compared with individual prenatal care. However, research is needed to evaluate outcomes of group multimodal prenatal care (GMPC), with groups delivered virtually in combination with individual in-person office appointments to collect vital signs and conduct other tests compared with individual multimodal prenatal care (IMPC) delivered through a combination of remotely delivered and in-person visits., Objective: To compare postpartum outcomes between GMPC and IMPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: A frequency-matched longitudinal cohort study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated health care delivery system. Participants included 424 individuals who were pregnant (212 GMPC and 212 frequency-matched IMPC controls (matched on gestational age, race and ethnicity, insurance status, and maternal age) receiving prenatal care between August 17, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Participants completed a baseline survey before 14 weeks' gestation and a follow-up survey between 4 and 8 weeks post partum. Data analysis was performed from January 3, 2022, to March 4, 2024., Exposure: GMPC vs IMPC., Main Outcome Measures: Validated instruments were used to ascertain postpartum psychosocial outcomes (stress, depression, anxiety) and perceived quality of prenatal care. Self-reported outcomes included behavioral outcomes (breastfeeding initiation, use of long-acting reversible contraception), satisfaction with prenatal care, and preparation for self and baby care after delivery. Primary analyses included all study participants in the final cohort. Three secondary dose-stratified analyses included individuals who attended at least 1 visit, 5 visits, and 70% of visits. Log-binomial regression and linear regression analyses were conducted., Results: The final analytic cohort of 390 participants (95.6% follow-up rate of 408 singleton live births) was racially and ethnically diverse: 98 (25.1%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 88 (22.6%) Hispanic, 17 (4.4%) non-Hispanic Black, 161 (41.3%) non-Hispanic White, and 26 (6.7%) multiracial participants; median age was 32 (IQR, 30-35) years. In the primary analysis, after adjustment, GMPC was associated with a 21% decreased risk of perceived stress (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.94) compared with IMPC. Findings were consistent in the dose-stratified analyses. There were no significant differences between GMPC and IMPC for other psychosocial outcomes. While in the primary analyses there was no significant group differences in perceived quality of prenatal care (mean difference [MD], 0.01; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.15) and feeling prepared to take care of baby at home (ARR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23), the dose-stratified analyses documented higher perceived quality of prenatal care (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01-0.31) and preparation for taking care of baby at home (ARR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.13-1.43) for GMPC among those attending 70% of visits. No significant differences were noted in patient overall satisfaction with prenatal care and feeling prepared for taking care of themselves after delivery., Conclusions: In this cohort study, equivalent and, in some cases, better outcomes were observed for GMPC compared with IMPC. Health care systems implementing multimodal models of care may consider incorporating virtual group prenatal care as a prenatal care option for patients.

Background: Despite the provision of maternity leave offered to mothers, many American women fail to take leave., Methods: We developed an evidence-based maternity leave educational tool for working women in California using participatory design. We tested its short-term efficacy with a randomized controlled trial of pregnant English-speakers (n=155)., Results: Among intervention participants exposed to the tool, 65% reported that they learned something new; 38% were motivated to seek more information; and 49% said it helped them plan their maternity leave. Among participants who delivered at ≥ 37 weeks gestation and said the tool helped them plan their leave, 89% took more than one week of prenatal leave, a significantly higher proportion than among controls who did not receive the tool (64%, p=0.049). Other findings favored trial participants, but were not statistically significant in this small sample. More intervention participants took some prenatal leave (80%) vs. controls (74%, p=0.44). Among participants who had returned to work when surveyed (n=50), mean postnatal leave uptake was on average 1 week longer for intervention participants vs. controls (13.3 vs. 12.2 weeks, p=0.54)., Conclusions: The first-phase evaluation of this tool shows that it successfully informed women about maternity leave options, clarified complex regulations, encouraged women to seek further information and helped plan maternity leave. Compared to controls, trial participants who used the tool to plan their leave were far more likely to take prenatal leave close to term. Future evaluation of the tool when mediated by a health provider or employer is warranted.

Objective: To assess differences in perceived quality of care between fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care Medicaid (MMC) by seniors and persons with disabilities (SPD) and to generate hypotheses for future evaluations of the new managed care mandate for SPD in California., Methods: A cross-sectional telephone survey of 403 SPD Medicaid beneficiaries comparing perceived access to, satisfaction with, and quality of care between beneficiaries who had voluntarily enrolled in MMC with those who had remained in FFS., Results: Beneficiaries in MMC were more likely to be "very satisfied" with their benefits than those in FFS. There was no significant difference on any measure of access to care. Most beneficiaries in MMC reported their access to and quality of health care was either the same or better than it had been in FFS., Conclusion: On most measures, MMC was rated either the same or better than FFS by SPD beneficiaries who voluntarily enrolled in MMC.

Objectives: To evaluate the following: (1) baseline knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions about Medicaid managed care (MMC) among seniors and people with disabilities (SPD) receiving Medicaid benefits; (2) SPD Medicaid beneficiaries' use of and satisfaction with a user-designed MMC guidebook; and (3) guidebook effects on changes in MMC knowledge, attitudes, and intended behaviors of SPD beneficiaries., Data Sources/study Setting: Survey data collected between February and May 2008 from a random sample of SPD receiving Medicaid benefits in three California counties., Study Design: This randomized controlled trial of 319 intervention and 373 control SPD Medicaid beneficiaries used pre- and postintervention telephone surveys to compare changes in MMC knowledge, attitudes, and intended behaviors., Data Collection Methods: Baseline and follow-up telephone interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Cantonese, and Mandarin., Principal Findings: Seventy-seven percent of intervention participants reported using the guidebook. Nearly all (97.9 percent) found it somewhat or very useful. Intervention participants showed gains in knowledge, positive attitudes, and intentions to enroll in MMC that are statistically significant compared with control participants. However, knowledge levels remained low even among intervention participants., Conclusions: Findings suggest that the guidebook is an effective way to improve recipients' MMC knowledge, confidence, and behavioral intentions.