Cited by 485Maternal and Neonatal HealthcareGlobal Maternal and Child HealthMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

The adequacy of prenatal care utilization index: its US distribution and association with low birthweight

Open access
Kotelchuck, M·1994·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

The proposed Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index is applied to data from the 1980 National Natality Survey to assess the adequacy of prenatal care utilization and its association with low birthweight in the United States. The index suggests that only 61.1% of women received adequate prenatal care, including 17.7% with more intensive care; 16.7% received inadequate care. More White women (63.4%) than Black women (51.9%) received adequate prenatal care. Low-birthweight rates were elevated among women with inadequate prenatal care and among those who received more intensive prenatal care.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.84.9.1486

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [3]3. Placek PJ. The 1980 National Natality and Fetal Mortality Surveys. Public Health Rep. 1984;99:111-116.
  2. [11]11. Institute of Medicine. PreventingLow Birth- weight. Washington, DC: National Acad- emy Press; 1985.
  3. [12]12. Gordis L, Kleinman JC, Klerman LV, Mullen PD, Paneth N. Criteria for evaluat- ing evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. In: Merkatz IR, Thompson Public Health Bniefs JE, eds. New Perspectives on Prenatal Care. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publish- ing Co; 1990:31-38.
  4. [13]13. Liberatos P, Kiely JL. Selected issues in the evaluation of prenatal care. In: Kielby M, ed. Reproductive and Pennatal Epidemiology. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press, 1991:79-98.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kotelchuck, M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Kotelchuck, M
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
1994-09
Volume
84
Issue
9
Pages
1486-1489
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2073808955
Cited by
485
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 21
FWCI
21.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
antenatal care utilization, low birth weight, racial disparities, Black women, white women, maternal health
MeSH terms
Birth Weight, Black or African American, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Infant, Low Birth Weight, Infant, Newborn, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Time Factors, White People

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