Clinical, psychosocial, and economic effects of antenatal day care for three medical complications of pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial of 395 women. A randomised controlled trial comparing two schedules of antenatal visits: the antenatal care project.
Day care is increasingly being used for complications of pregnancy, but there is little published evidence on its efficacy. We assessed the clinical, psychosocial, and economic effects of day care for three pregnancy complications in a randomised trial of day care versus standard care on an antenatal ward.
                395 women were randomly assigned day (263) or ward (132) care in a ratio of two to one, stratified for major diagnostic categories (non-proteinuric hypertension, proteinuric hypertension, and preterm premature rupture of membranes). The research hypothesis was that for these disorders, as an alternative to admission, antenatal day care will reduce specified interventions and investigations, result in no differences in clinical outcome, lead to greater satisfaction and psychological wellbeing, and be more cost-effective. Data were collected through case-note review, self-report questionnaires (response rates 81.0% or higher) and via the hospital's financial system. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                All participants were included in the analyses. There were no differences between the groups in antenatal tests or investigations or intrapartum interventions. The total duration of antenatal care episodes was shorter in the day-care group than in the ward group (median 17 [IQR 5-9] vs 57 [35-123] h; p=0.001). Overall stay was also significantly shorter in the day-care group (mean 7.22 [SE 0.31] vs 8.53 [0.44]; p=0.014). The median number of care episodes was three (range one to 14) in the day-care group and two (one to nine) in the ward group (p=0.01). There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes. The day-care group reported greater satisfaction, with no evidence of unintended psychosocial sequelae. There was no significant difference in either average cost per patient or average cost per day of care.
                Since clinical outcomes and costs are similar, adoption by maternity services of a policy providing specified women with the choice between admission and day-unit care seems appropriate. To compare the clinical and psychological effectiveness of the traditional British antenatal visit schedule (traditional care) with a reduced schedule of visits (new style care) for low risk women, together with maternal and professional satisfaction with care.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Places in south east London providing antenatal care for women receiving shared care and planning to deliver in one of three hospitals or at home.
                2794 women at low risk fulfilling the trial's inclusion criteria between June 1993 and July 1994.
                Measures of fetal and maternal morbidity, health service use, psychosocial outcomes, and maternal and professional satisfaction.
                Pregnant women allocated to new style care had fewer day admissions (0.8 v 1.0; P=0.002) and ultrasound scans (1.6 v 1.7; P=0.003) and were less often suspected of carrying fetuses that were small for gestational age (odds ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.99). They also had some poorer psychosocial outcomes; for example, they were more worried about fetal wellbeing antenatally and coping with the baby postnatally, and they had more negative attitudes to their babies, both in pregnancy and postnatally. These women were also more dissatisfied with the number of visits they received (odds ratio 2.50; 2.00 to 3.11).
                Patterns of antenatal care involving fewer routine visits for women at low risk may lead to reduced psychosocial effectiveness and dissatisfaction with frequency of visits. The number of antenatal day admissions and ultrasound scans performed may also be reduced. For the variables reported, the visit schedules studied are similar in their clinical effectiveness. Uncertainty remains as to the clinical effectiveness of reduced visit schedules for rare pregnancy problems.
The available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women with no adverse outcomes for themselves or their babies. This review is limited owing to the small number of studies/women and the majority of the analyses are based on a single study. More research is required to determine if group antenatal care is associated with significant benefits.