BACKGROUND

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine plan a new evidence-based joint consensus statement to address the preferred visit schedule and the use of televisits for routine antenatal care. This systematic review will support the consensus statement.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane databases, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX from inception through February 12, 2022. We included comparative studies from high-income countries that evaluated the frequency of scheduled routine antenatal visits or the inclusion of routine televisits, and qualitative studies addressing these two topics. We evaluated strength of evidence for 15 outcomes prioritized by stakeholders.

RESULTS

Ten studies evaluated scheduled number of routine visits and seven studies evaluated televisits. Nine qualitative studies also addressed these topics. Studies evaluated a wide range of reduced and traditional visit schedules and approaches to incorporating televisits. In comparisons of fewer to standard number of scheduled antenatal visits, moderate strength evidence did not find differences for gestational age at birth (4 studies), being small for gestational age (3 studies), Apgar score (5 studies), or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (5 studies). Low strength evidence did not find differences in maternal anxiety (3 studies), preterm births (3 studies), and low birth weight (4 studies). Qualitative studies suggest that providers believe fewer routine visits may be more convenient for patients and may free up clinic time to provide additional care for patients with high-risk pregnancies, but both patients and providers had concerns about potential lesser care with fewer visits. In comparisons of hybrid (televisits and in-person) versus in-person only visits, low strength evidence did not find differences in preterm births (4 studies) or NICU admissions (3 studies), but did suggest greater satisfaction with hybrid visits (2 studies). Qualitative studies suggested patients and providers were open to reduced schedules and televisits for routine antenatal care, but importantly, patients and providers had concerns about quality of care, and providers and clinic leadership had suggestions on how to best implement practice changes.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base is relatively sparse, with insufficient evidence for numerous prioritized outcomes. Studies were heterogeneous in the care models employed. Where there was sufficient evidence to make conclusions, studies did not find significant differences in harms to mother or baby between alternative models, but evidence suggested greater satisfaction with care with hybrid visits. Qualitative evidence suggests diverse barriers and facilitators to uptake of reduced visit schedules or televisits for routine antenatal care. Given the shortcomings of the evidence base, considerations other than proof of differences in outcomes may need to be considered regarding implications for clinical practice. New studies are needed to evaluate prioritized outcomes and potential differential effects among different populations or settings.