Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-h6p2m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-01T03:00:10.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Problems and Possible Endpoints in the Evaluation of Antenatal Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Leiv S. Bakketeig
Leiv S. Bakketeig
Affiliation:
National Institute of Public Health, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Antenatal care is evaluated based on observational trend studies, geographical comparisons, medical audits, and randomized trials. The last method is preferable and should be applied whenever feasible. Most components of antenatal care have not been properly evaluated. In order to evaluate an antenatal care program, a randomized study is suggested using geographical areas as units of randomization.

Type
Methodological Considerations in the Evaluation of Antenatal Care Programs
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Supplement S1 , January 1992 , pp. 33 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Bakketeig, L. S.How to evaluate perinatal care. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 1987, 15, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Bakketeig, L. S., & Oakley, A. Methodological issues in evaluation of perinatal care. In Phaff, J. M. L. (ed.), Perinatal health services in Europe. Searching for better childbirth. London: Croom Helm, 1986, 160–71.Google Scholar
3.Bowes, W.A review of perinatal mortality in Colorado, 1971 to 1978, and its relationship to the regionalization of perinatal services. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1981, 141, 1945–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Chalmers, I., & Mcllwaine, G.Perinatal audit and surveillance. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1980.Google Scholar
5.Drabløs, A., Aure, J. C., Eik-Nes, S., & Roald, G.Neonatal mortality in a Norwegian county hospital from 1972 to 1983. The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, 1985, 105, 1131–35.Google Scholar
6.Eksmyr, R., Larssen, K.-E., Bakketeig, L. S., et al. Perinatal mortality in a Swedish county 1973–78. Time trend revealed by perinatal audit. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica, 1986, 75, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Enkin, M., & Chalmers, I.Effectiveness and satisfaction in antenatal care. Clinics in developmental medicine, nos. 81/82. London: Spastics International Medical Publications, William Heinemann Medical Books, 1982.Google Scholar
8.Garcia, J. Women's views of antenatal care. In Enkin, M. & Chalmers, I. (eds.), Effectiveness and satisfaction in antenatal care. London: Spastic International Medical Publications, William Heinemann Medical Books, 1982.Google Scholar
9.Hein, H.Evaluation of a rural perinatal care system. Pediatrics, 1980, 66, 540–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Kamper Jorgensen, F. (ed.), Perinatal omsorg i de nordiske land. Copenhagen: DIKE, Munksgaard, 1986.Google Scholar
11.Lancet. Organization of perinatal care (editorial). Lancet, 1986, i, 777–80.Google Scholar
12.Larsen, K.-E., Bakketeig, L. S.Bergsjø, P., et al. Perinatal audit in Norway. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Hospital Research, 1980.Google Scholar
13.NOMESCO. Fødsler i Norden. Medisinsk fødselsregistrering. Births in the Nordic countries. Registration of the outcome of pregnancy, 1979. Nordisk Medicinal-Statistisk Kommittee, no. 17, Reykjavik, 1982.Google Scholar
14.NOMESCO, AFØ, Unpublished results, 1989.Google Scholar
15.Piekkala, P., Erkkola, R., Kero, O., et al. Declining perinatal mortality in a region of Finland. 1968–82. American Journal of Public Health, 1985, 75, 156–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Røssaak, E., & Jacobsen, G.Antenatal care in Møre og Romsdal. The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, 1987, 107, 958–62.Google Scholar