Patterns of routine antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

BACKGROUND It has been suggested that reduced antenatal care packages or prenatal care managed by providers other than obstetricians for low risk women can be as effective as standard models of antenatal care. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antenatal care programmes for low-risk women. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, reference lists of articles and we also contacted researchers in the field. Date of last search: April 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials comparing programmes of antenatal care with varied frequency and timing of the visits and different types of care providers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for additional information and they were provided with the final version of the review. MAIN RESULTS Nine trials involving over 25000 women were included. Six trials evaluated the number of visits and three trials evaluated the type of care provider. Most trials were of acceptable quality. Moderate reduction in the number of visits was not associated with an increase in any of the negative perinatal outcomes reviewed. However, trials from developed countries suggest that women can be less satisfied with the reduced number of visits and feel that their expectations with care are not fulfilled. Antenatal care provided by a midwife/general practitioner was associated with improved perception of care by women. Clinical effectiveness of midwife/general practitioner managed care was similar to that of obstetrician/gynaecologist led shared care. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS It appears that a moderate reduction in the number of antenatal care visits with an increased emphasis on the content of the visits could be implemented without any increase in adverse biological perinatal outcomes. Women can be less satisfied with reduced visits. While clinical effectiveness seemed similar, women appeared to be slightly more satisfied with midwife/general practitioner managed care compared to obstetrician/gynaecologist led shared care.