Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 590

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Group Prenatal Care and Perinatal Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Ickovics, Jeannette R., Kershaw, Trace S., Westdahl, Claire, Magriples, Urania, Massey, Zohar, Reynolds, Heather, Rising, Sharon Schindler·2007·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether group prenatal care improves pregnancy outcomes, psychosocial function, and patient satisfaction and to examine potential cost differences. METHODS: A multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted at two university-affiliated hospital prenatal clinics. Pregnant women aged 14-25 years (n=1,047) were randomly assigned to either standard or group care. Women with medical conditions requiring individualized care were excluded from randomization. Group participants received care in a group setting with women having the same expected delivery month. Timing and content of visits followed obstetric guidelines from week 18 through delivery. Each 2-hour prenatal care session included physical assessment, education and skills building, and support through facilitated group discussion. Structured interviews were conducted at study entry, during the third trimester, and postpartum. RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 20.4 years; 80% were African American. Using intent-to-treat analyses, women assigned to group care were significantly less likely to have preterm births compared with those in standard care: 9.8% compared with 13.8%, with no differences in age, parity, education, or income between study conditions. This is equivalent to a risk reduction of 33% (odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.99, P=.045), or 40 per 1,000 births. Effects were strengthened for African-American women: 10.0% compared with 15.8% (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.92, P=.02). Women in group sessions were less likely to have suboptimal prenatal care (P<.01), had significantly better prenatal knowledge (P<.001), felt more ready for labor and delivery (P<.001), and had greater satisfaction with care (P<.001). Breastfeeding initiation was higher in group care: 66.5% compared with 54.6%, P<.001. There were no differences in birth weight nor in costs associated with prenatal care or delivery. CONCLUSION: Group prenatal care resulted in equal or improved perinatal outcomes at no added cost. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00271960 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.aog.0000275284.24298.23

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 590

Metadata

Authors
Ickovics, J. R., Kershaw, T. S., Westdahl, C., Magriples, U., Massey, Z., Reynolds, H., & Rising, S. S.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2007-08
Volume
110
Issue
2
Pages
330-339
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124630220
Cited by
590
References
1
FWCI
37.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Group Prenatal Care and Perinatal Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000275284.24298.23
The paper
Ickovics, J. R., Kershaw, T. S., Westdahl, C., Magriples, U., Massey, Z., Reynolds, H., & Rising, S. S. (2007). Group Prenatal Care and Perinatal Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000275284.24298.23

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.