Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Brief ReportBrief Report

Effects of a Reduced-Visit Prenatal Care Clinical Practice Guideline

Christopher A. Partridge and John R. Holman
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice November 2005, 18 (6) 555-560; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.18.6.555
Christopher A. Partridge
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John R. Holman
MD MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Comparison of Visit Schedules between Classic Care and New Guideline*

    VisitClassic Care (weeks)New Guideline (weeks)
    First7 to 127 to 12
    Second≤12≤12
    Third1616 to 18
    Fourth2024
    Fifth2428
    Sixth2832
    Seventh3236
    Eighth3438
    Ninth3640
    Tenth37
    Eleventh38
    Twelfth39
    Thirteenth40
    • * Initial visit with registered nurse, remainder of visits with obstetrician/gynecologist, CMN, or family practitioner.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Demographic Data for Pre- and Post- 9-Visit Guideline Patients

    PreguidelinePostguidelineP Value
    Deliveries19231933
    Data incomplete276223
    Available for analysis16471710.05
    Age in years23.6 ± 4.5723.9 ± 4.76.11
    Gravidity2.1 ± 1.302.2 ± 1.30.58
    Parity1.2 ± 0.961.4 ± 1.22.01
    Aborted0.58 ± 0.940.50 ± 0.88.03
    Gestational age at delivery in weeks39.05 ± 2.7739.13 ± 1.94.19
    Percentage cared for by family practitioner22.721.8.35
    Percentage transferred to tertiary facility7.27.5.12
    Percentage with complications*12.616.2<.001
    Percentage of twins1.060.21<.001
    • * Defined as any complication listed in the inpatient record such oligohydramnios, twin gestation, gestational diabetes.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Comparison of Prenatal Visits

    PreguidelinePostguidelineP Value
    Clinic visits per delivery10.9 ± 3.99.2 ± 2.6<.001
    Outpatient visits to L&D* per month370 ± 40.6401 ± 16<.001
    Outpatient visits to L&D per delivery2.5 ± 0.22.9 ± 0.4.01
    • * L&D, labor and delivery.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Comparison of Obstetric Outcomes (Percentage)

    PreguidelinePostguidelineP Value*
    Vaginal deliveries76.478.0<.0001
    VBAC0.50.7
    Operative deliveries23.622.0
    Vacuum4.41.9
    Forceps2.21.0
    Primary cesarean section12.113.1
    Repeat cesarean section4.35.2
    Delivered before 37 weeks8.48.2.7
    Delivered after 42 weeks10.48.1.01
    Pitocin induction7.06.5.43
    • * χ2 analysis.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Comparison of Neonatal Outcomes

    PreguidelinePostguidelineP Value
    Birth weight3441 ± 5113402 ± 516.03
    Percentage of small for gestational age
        <2500 g (%)3.54.0.5
        <1500 g (%)0.20.4.7
        <1000 g (%)0.20.1.62
    Percentage of large for gestational age
    >4000 g (%)13.010.6.03
    >4500 g (%)1.61.3.41
    1-min Apgar8.1 ± 1.58.2 ± 1.3.72
    5-min Apgar8.8 ± 0.98.8 ± 0.9.56
    10-min Apgar8.1 ± 1.98.2 ± 1.6.56
    Admission to level 2 nursery (%)8.98.7.77
    Neonatal deaths (%)0.850.54.43
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice: 18 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice
Vol. 18, Issue 6
November-December 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of a Reduced-Visit Prenatal Care Clinical Practice Guideline
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Effects of a Reduced-Visit Prenatal Care Clinical Practice Guideline
Christopher A. Partridge, John R. Holman
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Nov 2005, 18 (6) 555-560; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.18.6.555

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effects of a Reduced-Visit Prenatal Care Clinical Practice Guideline
Christopher A. Partridge, John R. Holman
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Nov 2005, 18 (6) 555-560; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.18.6.555
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Telemedicine For Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Patient Perspectives on Delayed Specialty Follow-Up After a Primary Care Visit
  • Association of Social Needs with Diabetes Outcomes in an Older Population
  • Insurance Instability Among Community-Based Health Center Patients with Diabetes Post-Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion
Show more Brief Reports

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire