Hobel C J, Ross M G, Bemis R L, Bragonier J R, Nessim S, Sandhu M, Bear M B, Mori B
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jan;170(1 Pt 1):54-62. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70384-1.
The primary objective of this prospective study was to test whether preterm birth prevention education plus increased clinic visits and selected prophylactic interventions reduce preterm birth.
Eight West Los Angeles prenatal county clinics, comparable with respect to selected demographics, were randomized to be either experimental or control clinics. High-risk patients in all clinics were identified with a risk scoring system derived from a similar population. High-risk patients (N = 1774) in experimental clinics were offered a program of education and more frequent visits and were randomized to receive various secondary intervention protocols in addition to the basic interventions of education and more frequent visits. Control clinic patients (N = 880) received standard county care.
Preterm birth rates were 19% lower among the experimental high-risk patients (7.4% vs 9.1%), and differences were significant (p < 0.05) when preterm risk was taken into account. There was no evidence to suggest that the secondary interventions provided added benefit over the primary intervention protocol of preterm birth prevention education and increased visits.
The 19% reduction in preterm birth rate observed in the experimental clinics suggest an overall program benefit from a protocol that offered education, more frequent visits, and greater attention given to patients while the selected interventions were applied.
这项前瞻性研究的主要目的是测试预防早产教育加上增加门诊就诊次数和选定的预防性干预措施是否能降低早产率。
选取八家洛杉矶西部产前县诊所,这些诊所在选定的人口统计学特征方面具有可比性,被随机分为试验组和对照组。所有诊所的高危患者均通过源自类似人群的风险评分系统进行识别。试验组诊所的高危患者(N = 1774)接受了一项教育计划并增加了就诊次数,此外,除了教育和增加就诊次数这些基本干预措施外,他们还被随机分配接受各种二级干预方案。对照组诊所的患者(N = 880)接受标准的县级护理。
试验组高危患者的早产率低19%(7.4%对9.1%),在考虑早产风险时,差异具有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。没有证据表明二级干预措施比预防早产教育和增加就诊次数的一级干预方案能带来更多益处。
试验组诊所观察到的早产率降低19%表明,在应用选定干预措施时,一项提供教育、增加就诊次数并给予患者更多关注的方案总体上是有益的。