Heaman Maureen I, Newburn-Cook Christine V, Green Chris G, Elliott Lawrence J, Helewa Michael E
Faculty of Nursing, Room 217 Helen Glass Centre for Nursing, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008 May 1;8:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-8-15.
The objectives of this study were to determine rates of prenatal care utilization in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada from 1991 to 2000; to compare two indices of prenatal care utilization in identifying the proportion of the population receiving inadequate prenatal care; to determine the association between inadequate prenatal care and adverse pregnancy outcomes (preterm birth, low birth weight [LBW], and small-for-gestational age [SGA]), using each of the indices; and, to assess whether or not, and to what extent, gestational age modifies this association.
We conducted a population-based study of women having a hospital-based singleton live birth from 1991 to 2000 (N = 80,989). Data sources consisted of a linked mother-baby database and a physician claims file maintained by Manitoba Health. Rates of inadequate prenatal care were calculated using two indices, the R-GINDEX and the APNCU. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between inadequate prenatal care and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Stratified analysis was then used to determine whether the association between inadequate prenatal care and LBW or SGA differed by gestational age.
Rates of inadequate/no prenatal care ranged from 8.3% using APNCU to 8.9% using R-GINDEX. The association between inadequate prenatal care and preterm birth and LBW varied depending on the index used, with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) ranging from 1.0 to 1.3. In contrast, both indices revealed the same strength of association of inadequate prenatal care with SGA (AOR 1.4). Both indices demonstrated heterogeneity (non-uniformity) across gestational age strata, indicating the presence of effect modification by gestational age.
Selection of a prenatal care utilization index requires careful consideration of its methodological underpinnings and limitations. The two indices compared in this study revealed different patterns of utilization of prenatal care, and should not be used interchangeably. Use of these indices to study the association between utilization of prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes affected by the duration of pregnancy should be approached cautiously.
本研究的目的是确定1991年至2000年加拿大曼尼托巴省温尼伯市的产前保健利用率;比较两种产前保健利用指标在确定接受不足产前保健人群比例方面的情况;使用每种指标确定不足产前保健与不良妊娠结局(早产、低出生体重[LBW]和小于胎龄儿[SGA])之间的关联;并评估孕周是否以及在多大程度上改变这种关联。
我们对1991年至2000年在医院单胎活产的妇女进行了一项基于人群的研究(N = 80,989)。数据来源包括一个关联的母婴数据库和曼尼托巴省卫生部维护的医生索赔文件。使用R-GINDEX和APNCU这两种指标计算不足产前保健率。采用逻辑回归分析确定不足产前保健与不良妊娠结局之间的关联。然后进行分层分析,以确定不足产前保健与LBW或SGA之间的关联是否因孕周而异。
使用APNCU时,不足/无产前保健率为8.3%,使用R-GINDEX时为8.9%。不足产前保健与早产和LBW之间的关联因所使用的指标而异,调整后的优势比(AOR)范围为1.0至1.3。相比之下,两种指标显示不足产前保健与SGA的关联强度相同(AOR 1.4)。两种指标在孕周分层中均显示出异质性(不均匀性),表明存在孕周的效应修饰。
选择产前保健利用指标需要仔细考虑其方法学基础和局限性。本研究中比较的两种指标显示了不同的产前保健利用模式,不应互换使用。使用这些指标研究产前保健利用与受孕期影响的妊娠结局之间的关联时应谨慎。