Impact of an inner-city, hospital-based preterm prevention program on preterm births in twin gestation.

C F Edwards, C Chazotte, M C Freda, L Shah, B Girz, K Damus, I R Merkatz
{"title":"Impact of an inner-city, hospital-based preterm prevention program on preterm births in twin gestation.","authors":"C F Edwards,&nbsp;C Chazotte,&nbsp;M C Freda,&nbsp;L Shah,&nbsp;B Girz,&nbsp;K Damus,&nbsp;I R Merkatz","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to determine the impact of an inner-city, hospital-based preterm-birth prevention program on the outcome of twin pregnancies. A retrospective study of delivery outcomes from 1985 to 1992 of eligible consecutive twin deliveries that were > or = 20 weeks' gestation compared two inner-city hospitals in the Bronx, New York: one with a preterm prevention program for twin births and a comparable site offering conventional prenatal care. A group of patients receiving no prenatal care was also included. Outcomes were evaluated by prenatal-care site, except for those who received no prenatal care and delivered at either site. Data were analyzed by chi-square analysis and analysis of variance. Of the 377 twin pregnancies, 330 pregnancies were eligible deliveries. One hundred thirty-four women received prenatal care from the preterm prevention program, 161 received conventional prenatal care at a comparable site, and 35 received no prenatal care. Maternal age, parity, and mode of delivery were similar in the two delivery sites. There was an increased incidence of complications in the no-prenatal-care group compared with the groups who received the preterm prevention or conventional prenatal care. The percentage of low-birth-weight (< 2500 g) and very-low-birth-weight (< 1000 g) infants was similar in the preterm prevention and the conventional care groups. The percentage of extremely low-birth-weight (< 1000 g) infants was significantly lower in twin births of the preterm prevention site (9.7%) and the conventional site (11.3%) compared with the no-prenatal-care group (28.6%) (P < .01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":77227,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians : the official publication of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians : the official publication of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of an inner-city, hospital-based preterm-birth prevention program on the outcome of twin pregnancies. A retrospective study of delivery outcomes from 1985 to 1992 of eligible consecutive twin deliveries that were > or = 20 weeks' gestation compared two inner-city hospitals in the Bronx, New York: one with a preterm prevention program for twin births and a comparable site offering conventional prenatal care. A group of patients receiving no prenatal care was also included. Outcomes were evaluated by prenatal-care site, except for those who received no prenatal care and delivered at either site. Data were analyzed by chi-square analysis and analysis of variance. Of the 377 twin pregnancies, 330 pregnancies were eligible deliveries. One hundred thirty-four women received prenatal care from the preterm prevention program, 161 received conventional prenatal care at a comparable site, and 35 received no prenatal care. Maternal age, parity, and mode of delivery were similar in the two delivery sites. There was an increased incidence of complications in the no-prenatal-care group compared with the groups who received the preterm prevention or conventional prenatal care. The percentage of low-birth-weight (< 2500 g) and very-low-birth-weight (< 1000 g) infants was similar in the preterm prevention and the conventional care groups. The percentage of extremely low-birth-weight (< 1000 g) infants was significantly lower in twin births of the preterm prevention site (9.7%) and the conventional site (11.3%) compared with the no-prenatal-care group (28.6%) (P < .01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
市中心医院早产儿预防项目对双胎早产的影响
本研究的目的是确定市中心以医院为基础的早产预防计划对双胎妊娠结局的影响。一项对1985年至1992年妊娠>或= 20周的符合条件的连续双胞胎分娩结果的回顾性研究比较了纽约布朗克斯的两家市中心医院:一家有双胞胎早产预防计划,另一家提供传统产前护理的可比医院。一组未接受产前护理的患者也包括在内。结果通过产前护理地点进行评估,除了那些没有接受产前护理并在任何一个地点分娩的人。资料采用卡方分析和方差分析。在377例双胎妊娠中,有330例妊娠符合条件。134名妇女接受了早产预防项目的产前护理,161名妇女在可比地点接受了常规产前护理,35名妇女没有接受产前护理。两个分娩地点的产妇年龄、胎次和分娩方式相似。与接受早产预防或常规产前护理的组相比,无产前护理组的并发症发生率增加。在早产儿预防组和常规护理组中,低出生体重(< 2500克)和极低出生体重(< 1000克)婴儿的百分比相似。早产预防组(9.7%)和常规组(11.3%)的双胞胎极低出生体重(< 1000 g)婴儿比例显著低于无产前护理组(28.6%)(P < 0.01)。(摘要删节250字)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Return on investment analysis for a computer-based patient record in the outpatient clinic setting. Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in African Americans. Early detection and screening for ovarian cancer: does physician specialty matter? Adiposity changes in youth with a family history of cardiovascular disease: impact of ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status. Health disparities research--a model for conducting research on cancer disparities: characterization and reduction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1