The West Los Angeles Preterm Birth Prevention Project. I. Program impact on high-risk women
Abstract
Objective 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. Study design 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. Results Preterm birth rates were 19% lower among the experimental high-risk patients (7.4% vs 9.1%), and differences were significant (p Conclusion 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
No standard definition exists for activity restriction in pregnancy.
“One of the difficulties in determining the benefits and harms associated with activity restriction is that no standard definition exists for this term.”
From Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #50: The role of activity restriction in obstetric management (2020) · cites this paper as [14]
In an RCT by Hobel et al, preterm birth rates were similar in the activity restriction intervention and standard of care groups (7.9% vs 8.5%; RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.62-1.37).
“Preterm birth rates were similar in the activity restriction intervention and standard of care groups (7.9% vs 8.5%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–1.37).”
From Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #50: The role of activity restriction in obstetric management (2020) · cites this paper as [14]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 139
- Authors
- Hobel, C. J., Ross, M. G., Bemis, R. L., Bragonier, J. R., Nessim, S., Sandhu, M., Bear, M. B., & Mori, B.
- Affiliations
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- ORCID
- Ross, Michael G.
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 170
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 54-62
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994878361
- Cited by
- 139
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 17.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
- Keywords
- preterm birth prevention, high-risk pregnancy, prenatal care, patient education, clinic visits, prophylactic interventions, risk scoring, West Los Angeles
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bed Rest, Counseling, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Obstetric Labor, Premature, Office Visits, Patient Education as Topic, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Primary Prevention, Prospective Studies, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Los Angeles, Medroxyprogesterone Acetate
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review