Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of the studies investigating measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization

From: Systematic review of the measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization

Author, Year

Country

Index

Design

Population and Sample Size

Data Source

Overall Quality

Alexander, 1996 [12]

USA

- Kessner

- APNCUI

- GINDEX

- R-GINDEX

-PHS/EPPC

Retrospective cohort study

Pregnant women having a singleton live birth in South Carolina

N = 169,082

Administrative health database (1989–1991)

Fair

Beeckman, 2013 [26]

Belgium

- APNCUI

- CTP

Prospective cohort study

Pregnant women seen at medical centres in Brusssels Metropolitan Region

N = 333

Interview (2008)

Good

da Silva, 2013 [24]

Brazil

- Kessner

- APNCUI

- IPR/Prenatal Index

Cross-sectional study

Pregnant women seen at primary care services in the municipality of Joao Pessoa

N = 238

Survey (2010–2011)

Fair

Delgado-Rodriguez, 1996 [27]

Spain

- Kessner

- APNCUI

Case-control study

Pregnant women seen at a University hospital in Granada

N = 632

Chart review and interview (1990–1993)

Fair

Dos Santos, 2013 [25]

Brazil

- Kessner

- APNCUI

- GINDEX

- PHS/EPPC

- IPR/Prenatal Index

- Carvalho & Novaes Index

- Ciari Index

- Coutinho Index

Retrospective cohort study

Pregnant women admitted for delivery at public and outsourced maternity hospitals in Greater Metropolitan Vitória

N = 1006

Chart review and interview (2010)

Fair

Heaman, 2008 [15]

Canada

- APNCUI

- R-GINDEX

Retrospective cohort study

Pregnant women having a hospital-based singleton live birth in Winnipeg

N = 80,989

Administrative health database (1991–2000)

Good

Koroukian, 2002 [19]

USA

- APNCUI

Cross-sectional study

Pregnant women having a singleton live birth in Ohio

N = 591,403

Administrative health database (1993–1996)

Fair

Kotelchuck, 1994 [10]

USA

- Kessner

- APNCUI

Retrospective cohort study

Women with prenatal care information on the birth certificate from the 1980 National Natality Survey

N = 9941

Survey (1980)

Poor

Kurtzman, 2014 [20]

USA

- APNCUI

- LV-APNC Index

Retrospective cohort study

Pregnant women having a singleton live hospital birth in New York State

N = 58,462

Perinatal Database (2007–2011)

Fair

Penrod, 2000 [21]

USA

- Kessner

- APNCUI

Retrospective cohort study

Women with prenatal care information on the birth certificate from the 1980 National Natality Survey

N = 7973

Survey (1980)

Poor

Perloff, 1997 [22]

USA

- Kessner

- APNCUI

Retrospective cohort study

Women with birth certificate data from New York city

N = 255,884

Administrative health database (1991–1992)

Fair

Rosenberg, 2004 [23]

USA

- APNCUI

- Cluster solution

Retrospective cohort study

Women with live birth data from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey

N = 3544

Survey (1988)

Good

VanderWeele, 2009 [14]

USA

- Kessner

- APNCUI

- GINDEX

Retrospective cohort study

Women with live birth data from the 2003 National Center for Health Statistics Linked Birth and Infant Death Cohort files

N = NR

Administrative health database (2003)

Good

  1. APNCUI Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index, CTP Content and Timing of Care in Pregnancy, GINDEX Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index, IPR Infrastructure, process, and results, LV-APNC Last Visit Adequacy of Prenatal Care Index, PHS/EPPC United States Public Health Service Expert Panel on Prenatal Care, R-GINDEX Revised-Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index, NR Not reported, USA United States of America