Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women

1996 ◽  
Vol 129 (3) ◽  
pp. 470-471
Author(s):  
RS McDuffie ◽  
A Beck ◽  
K Bischoff ◽  
J Cross ◽  
M Orleans
2018 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. 129S
Author(s):  
Nathaniel DeNicola ◽  
Sheetal Sheth ◽  
Kelly Leggett ◽  
Mark B. Woodland ◽  
Nihar Ganju ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (5) ◽  
pp. 505-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Friedman Peahl ◽  
Michele Heisler ◽  
Lydia K. Essenmacher ◽  
Vanessa K. Dalton ◽  
Vineet Chopra ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Tara Hoff ◽  
Petra Hahn ◽  
Deepti Sharma ◽  
Abbey J Hardy-Fairbanks ◽  
Colleen K Stockdale

Author(s):  
Shilpa N. Ninama ◽  
Mayur R. Gandhi

Background: Modified WHO Partograph is a simple, inexpensive pre-printed form on which labour observation are recorded. It generally comprises three sections of information: maternal condition, fetal condition and labor progress. To study on usefulness of Modified WHO Partograph in management of labour of low risk women, this indirectly improved maternal and perinatal outcome.Methods: In this study the progress of labour of 150 women with uncomplicated full term pregnancies with cephalic presentation in active labour was studied using modified WHO partograph. 150 historical matched controls comprising of low risk women who delivered without the use of partograph were identified from the labour register and their course of labour studied. The hospital records were studied to obtain the demographic variables. Maternal and perinatal outcome was analyzed for both cases and controls.Results: The emergency cesarean section rate was reduced from 38.7% in controls to 24.7% in cases and both are significant statistically. None of the cases had labour beyond 16 hours, thus indicating significant reduction in prolonged labour. Neonatal intensive care admissions decreased from 18.6% in controls to 6% in cases indicating an improved maternal and neonatal outcome.Conclusions: Modified WHO Partograph work as “early alarming warning system” which help in detecting delayed progress of labour which improves maternal as well as perinatal outcome.


2009 ◽  
Vol 201 (6) ◽  
pp. S224-S225
Author(s):  
Birgit Van der Goes ◽  
Anita Ravelli ◽  
Ank De Jonge ◽  
Trees Wiegers ◽  
Simone Buitendijk ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 185 (6) ◽  
pp. S160
Author(s):  
William Gilbert ◽  
Danielle Duenas ◽  
Beate Danielsen

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Netty Katrina Dameria ◽  
Djaswadi Dasuki ◽  
Rukmono Siswishanto

Background: Caesarean section is a procedure to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. The caesarean section rate is continuously uprising in the last 3 decades. However, the increasing rate, especially in low risk women, may compromise maternal and perinatal outcome. In 1985, WHO recommended that optimal national caesarean rates should be in the range of 5% to 10% and the rate above 15% might be less benefits. Previous study conducted in DR Sardjito hospital reported caesarean section rate in 1996 was 13.38%, while in 2001 was 18.39%. In national level, based on Indonesia Basic Health Survey 2010, caesarean section rate was 10.8%. Therefore, in this study we analyzed the rate of Caesarean section performed in DR Sardjito hospital, and studied whether the operations occurred in high-risk group or low-risk group.Objective: To compare the rate of caesarean section between high-risk group and low-risk group in DR Sardjito hospitalMethod: Retrospective cohortResult and Discussion: Participants of this study were 7821 patients undergoing labor at RSUP DR Sardjito in 2009-2013. Among them, 3152 patients underwent caesarean section and 4669 patients underwent vaginal delivery. There was an increasing in the overall caesarean section rate of 38,7% in 2009 to 43% in 2013. T-test found the presence of significant differences between the caesarean section rate of high-risk group and low-risk group in 2009-2013 (p<0.05) with a mean difference was 28.5 (20.2-36.8). Caesarean section rate of high-risk group was significantly higher than the low-risk group (p<0.05).Conclusion: There was a difference in caesarean section rate of high-risk group compared to low-risk group. Caesarean section rate in high-risk group was significantly higher than in the low-risk group.Keywords: caesarean section rate, caesarean section, low-risk group, high- risk group


2017 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. 63S
Author(s):  
Tara Hoff ◽  
Petra Hahn ◽  
Jaimie Huntly ◽  
Deepti Sharma ◽  
Colleen Stockdale ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document