Till Sara R, Everetts David, Haas David M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1001 West 10th Street, F-5, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 46202.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 15;2015(12):CD009916. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009916.pub2.
BACKGROUND: Prenatal care is recommended during pregnancy as a method to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. Improving the use of prenatal care is important, particularly for women at moderate to high risk of adverse outcomes. Incentives are sometimes utilized to encourage women to attend prenatal care visits. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether incentives are an effective tool to increase utilization of timely prenatal care among women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2015) and the reference lists of all retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs that utilized direct incentives to pregnant women explicitly linked to initiation and frequency of prenatal care were included. Incentives could include cash, vouchers, coupons or products not generally offered to women as a standard of prenatal care. Comparisons were to no incentives and to incentives not linked directly to utilization of care. We also planned to compare different types of interventions, i.e. monetary versus products or services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and methodological quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 studies (19 reports), six of which we excluded. Five studies, involving 11,935 pregnancies were included, but only 1893 pregnancies contributed data regarding our specified outcomes. Incentives in the studies included cash, gift card, baby carrier, baby blanket or taxicab voucher and were compared with no incentives. Meta-analysis was performed for only one outcome 'Return for postpartum care' and this outcome was not pre-specified in our protocol. Other analyses were restricted to data from single studies.Trials were at a moderate risk of bias overall. Randomization and allocation were adequate and risk of selection bias was low in three studies and unclear in two studies. None of the studies were blinded to the participants. Blinding of outcome assessors was adequate in one study, but was limited or not described in the remaining four studies. Risk of attrition was deemed to be low in all studies that contributed data to the review. Two of the studies reported or analyzed data in a manner that was not consistent with the predetermined protocol and thus were deemed to be at high risk. The other three studies were low risk for reporting bias. The largest two of the five studies comprising the majority of participants took place in rural, low-income, homogenously Hispanic communities in Central America. This setting introduces a number of confounding factors that may affect generalizability of these findings to ethnically and economically diverse urban communities in developed countries.The five included studies of incentive programs did not report any of this review's primary outcomes: preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, or perinatal death.In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, pregnant women receiving incentives were no more likely to initiate prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.38, one study, 104 pregnancies). Pregnant women receiving incentives were more likely to attend prenatal visits on a frequent basis (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38, one study, 606 pregnancies) and obtain adequate prenatal care defined by number of "procedures" such as testing blood sugar or blood pressure, vaccinations and counseling about breastfeeding and birth control (mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.88 to 9.80, one study, 892 pregnancies). In contrast, women who received incentives were more likely to deliver by cesarean section (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.30, one study, 979 pregnancies) compared to those women who did not receive incentives.Women who received incentives were no more likely to return for postpartum care based on results of meta-analysis (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.64, two studies, 833 pregnancies, Tau² = 0.81, I² = 98%). However, there was substantial heterogeneity in this analysis so a subgroup analysis was performed and this identified a clear difference between subgroups based on the type of incentive being offered. In one study, women receiving non-cash incentives were more likely to return for postpartum care (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.47, 240 pregnancies) than women who did not receive non-cash incentives. In another study, women receiving cash incentives were less likely to return for postpartum care (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62, 593 pregnancies) than women who did not receive cash incentives.No data were identified for the following secondary outcomes: frequency of prenatal care; pre-eclampsia; satisfaction with birth experience; maternal mortality; low birthweight (less than 2500 g); infant macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g); or five-minute Apgar less than seven. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies did not report on this review's main outcomes: preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, or perinatal death. There is limited evidence that incentives may increase utilization and quality of prenatal care, but may also increase cesarean rate. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to fully evaluate the impact of incentives on prenatal care initiation. There are conflicting data as to the impact of incentives on return for postpartum care. Two of the five studies which accounted for the majority of women in this review were conducted in rural, low-income, overwhelmingly Hispanic communities in Central America, thus limiting the external validity of these results.There is a need for high-quality RCTs to determine whether incentive program increase prenatal care use and improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Incentive programs, in particular cash-based programs, as suggested in this review and in several observational studies may improve the frequency and ensure adequate quality of prenatal care. No peer-reviewed data have been made publicly available for one of the largest incentive-based prenatal programs - the statewide Medicaid-based programs within the United States. These observational data represent an important starting point for future research with significant implications for policy development and allocation of healthcare resources. The disparate findings related to attending postpartum care should also be further explored as the findings were limited by the number of studies. Future large RCTs are needed to focus on the outcomes of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age and perinatal outcomes.
背景:孕期推荐进行产前检查,作为改善新生儿及孕产妇结局的一种方法。提高产前检查的利用率很重要,尤其对于有中度到高度不良结局风险的女性。有时会采用激励措施鼓励女性进行产前检查。 目的:确定激励措施是否是提高女性及时进行产前检查利用率的有效工具。 检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2015年1月31日)以及所有检索到的研究的参考文献列表。 入选标准:纳入采用直接激励措施、明确与产前检查的开始和频率相关联的随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验和整群随机对照试验,这些激励措施针对孕妇。激励措施可包括现金、代金券、优惠券或通常不作为产前检查标准提供给女性的产品。对照为无激励措施以及与检查利用率无直接关联的激励措施。我们还计划比较不同类型的干预措施,即金钱与产品或服务。 数据收集与分析:两名综述作者独立评估研究是否纳入及方法学质量。两名综述作者独立提取数据。对数据进行准确性检查。 主要结果:我们识别出11项研究(19篇报告),其中6项被排除。纳入5项研究,涉及11935例妊娠,但仅有1893例妊娠提供了有关我们指定结局的数据。研究中的激励措施包括现金、礼品卡、婴儿背带、婴儿毛毯或出租车代金券,并与无激励措施进行比较。仅对“产后护理复诊”这一结局进行了Meta分析,且该结局在我们的方案中未预先指定。其他分析仅限于单个研究的数据。试验总体存在中度偏倚风险。随机化和分配恰当,三项研究中选择偏倚风险低,两项研究中不明确。所有研究均未对参与者设盲。一项研究中结局评估者的设盲恰当,但其余四项研究中有限或未描述。所有为该综述提供数据的研究中失访风险被认为较低。两项研究报告或分析数据的方式与预定方案不一致,因此被认为风险高。其他三项研究报告偏倚风险低。纳入的五项研究中,规模最大的两项涉及大多数参与者,研究地点在中美洲农村、低收入、以西班牙裔为主的同质社区。这种环境引入了一些混杂因素,可能会影响这些研究结果在发达国家种族和经济多样化城市社区的普遍性。纳入的五项激励计划研究均未报告本综述的任何主要结局:早产、小于胎龄儿或围产期死亡。就本综述的次要结局而言,接受激励措施的孕妇开始产前检查的可能性并未增加(风险比(RR)1.04,95%置信区间(CI)0.78至1.38,一项研究,104例妊娠)。接受激励措施的孕妇更有可能频繁进行产前检查(RR 1.18,95%CI 1.01至1.38,一项研究,606例妊娠),并获得由血糖或血压检测、疫苗接种以及母乳喂养和节育咨询等“程序”数量定义的充分产前检查(平均差(MD)5.84,95%CI 1.88至9.80,一项研究,892例妊娠)。相比之下,接受激励措施的女性剖宫产分娩的可能性更大(RR 1.97,95%CI 1.18至3.30,一项研究,979例妊娠)。根据Meta分析结果,接受激励措施的女性产后护理复诊的可能性并未增加(平均RR 0.75,95%CI 0.21至2.64,两项研究,833例妊娠,Tau² = 0.81,I² = 98%)。然而,该分析存在实质性异质性,因此进行了亚组分析,结果发现基于所提供激励措施类型的亚组之间存在明显差异。在一项研究中,接受非现金激励措施的女性产后护理复诊的可能性高于未接受非现金激励措施的女性(RR 1.26,95%CI 1.09至1.47,240例妊娠)。在另一项研究中,接受现金激励措施的女性产后护理复诊的可能性低于未接受现金激励措施的女性(RR 0.43,95%CI 0.30至0.62,593例妊娠)。未识别到以下次要结局的数据:产前检查频率;子痫前期;对分娩经历的满意度;孕产妇死亡率;低出生体重(小于2500克);巨大儿(出生体重超过4000克);或5分钟阿氏评分低于7分。 作者结论:纳入的研究未报告本综述的主要结局:早产、小于胎龄儿或围产期死亡。有有限的证据表明激励措施可能会提高产前检查的利用率和质量,但也可能增加剖宫产率。总体而言,没有足够的证据来全面评估激励措施对产前检查开始的影响。关于激励措施对产后护理复诊的影响存在相互矛盾的数据。本综述中占大多数女性的五项研究中有两项在中美洲农村、低收入、绝大多数为西班牙裔的社区进行,因此限制了这些结果的外部有效性。需要高质量的随机对照试验来确定激励计划是否能增加产前检查的使用并改善孕产妇和新生儿结局。如本综述及多项观察性研究中所建议的,激励计划,特别是基于现金的计划,可能会提高产前检查的频率并确保其质量。对于最大的基于激励措施的产前计划之一——美国全州范围的基于医疗补助的计划,尚未公开可获取经过同行评审的数据。这些观察性数据是未来研究的重要起点,对政策制定和医疗资源分配具有重要意义。由于研究数量有限,与产后护理就诊相关的不同结果也应进一步探讨。未来需要大型随机对照试验关注早产、小于胎龄儿和围产期结局。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-12-15
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-11-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-8-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-11-27
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-12-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-6-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-7-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-7-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-2-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-11-5
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023-5-24
AJOG Glob Rep. 2021-6-30
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2022
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014-1-17
Reprod Health Matters. 2012-6
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010-5-14
Matern Child Health J. 2011-10