Process and outcome of prenatal care according to the primary care models: a cohort study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2806.3058Keywords:
Prenatal Care, Evaluation of Health Programs and Projects, Primary Health Care, Family Health Strategy, Child Health, Women’s HealthAbstract
Objective: to evaluate the process and outcome indicators of the prenatal care developed in primary care, comparing traditional care models and the Family Health Strategy. Method: this is a cohort study, conducted with an intentional sample of 273 mothers/babies from the neonatal period and followed up for one year. Donabedian evaluation was adopted and data were discussed based on the Social Determination of Health. The independent variable was the care model. The dependent variables in the process evaluation were related to the quality of prenatal care and to the quality score created and the evaluation of the outcome, to the conditions of birth and the first year of life. The evaluation of the process was performed by estimating the relative risk and the evaluation of the outcome was performed by the Cox Multiple Regression Model. Results: lower income and risk of the low prenatal quality score were identified in the Family Health Units, where there were more puerperium consultation and health education actions. There was no difference in outcome indicators. Conclusion: possibly the best quality of prenatal care was able to minimize negative socioeconomic effects found in family health, so the outcome indicators were similar in both models of the primary care.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.