|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 26
Chapter
1
Who Obtains Insufficient
Prenatal Care?
Depending on the measure used, between one-fourth and one-third of
all pregnant women in the United States do not obtain early, continuous
prenatal care. Women in certain sociodemographic groups and in certain
geographic areas are significantly less likely than others to secure care, and
in recent years, use of prenatal care has actually declined among some
groups. Relying primarily on national vital statistics, this chapter presents
data on these correlates and trends, focusing in particular on women who
receive little or no care, because such minimal care is strongly associated
with poor pregnancy outcomes. It begins with a brief discussion of
terminology and methods of measuring prenatal care and then describes
current patterns of use, analyzes the relationships among demographic risk
factors, and presents trends in the use of prenatal care since 1969.
TERMINOLOGY AND MEASURES
No single specification of the content of prenatal care is unanimously
accepted by public health authorities, health care providers, or researchers.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and a
joint working group of representatives from ACOG and from the American
Academy of Pediatrics have discussed the goals and content of prenatal
care in some details 2 however, and the Expert Pane! on the Content of
Prenatal Care ancI the Preventive Services Task Force (both housed within
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) promise adclitional
26
OCR for page 27
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CAM?
27
guidance in the future. In the absence of an agreement on the content of
prenatal care and because many of its components are difficult to measure,
most research on the effectiveness of prenatal services focuses on quantity
of care received (such as number of prenatal visits).
Prenatal care differs from other types of health care in the measures used
to understand its impact on health outcomes. Most studies of the
effectiveness of medical care examine provider actions for example, did
the physician take an adequate history, order the appropriate tests, and
conduct the right procedures? By contrast, studies of the role of prenatal
care in pregnancy outcome usually examine consumer actions—for exam-
ple, ctid the pregnant woman initiate care early, and how many visits did
she make? It is unclear why in the field of prenatal services the emphasis
is on consumer rather than provider behavior. Exceptions to this method
of measuring prenatal care include the work of Morehead, Donaldson, and
Seravalli in 19713 and, more recently, Hughey in 1986.4 It is also
important to note that various efforts to lower maternal mortality in past
years have focused on provider behavior during the prenatal period.
Three measures of the quantity of prenatal care are widely used: (1) the
number of visits made throughout pregnancy (frequency), (2) the trimes-
ter or month in which care began (timing), and (3) an index relating the
frequency and timing of visits to gestational age. This last measure is the
basis of the widely used Kessner index,5 in which a woman's prenatal care
is classified as "adequate" if it begins in the first trimester and includes nine
or more visits for a pregnancy of 36 or more weeks; "intermediate" if it
begins in the second trimester or includes five to eight visits for a
pregnancy of 36 or more weeks; or "inadequate" if it begins in the third
trimester or includes four or fewer visits for a pregnancy of 34 or more
weeks.
All three of these measures tacitly acknowledge the schedule of prenatal
visits recommended by ACOG: care beginning as early in the first trimester
of pregnancy as possible, with additional visits every 4 weeks for the first
28 weeks of pregnancy, every 2 to 3 weeks for the next 8 weeks, and
weekly thereafter until delivery. Such a schedule yields about 12 visits for
a 39-week pregnancy, 13 for a 40-week pregnancy, and 14 for a 41-week
pregnancy.
All three measures have two major limitations. First, none includes a
precise definition of a prenatal visit. A visit for a pregnancy test only, for
example, should not be equated with a prenatal care visit, but anecdotal
reports suggest that these two distinct events can be confused by women
themselves and commingled in data on use of prenatal care. Second, the
measures depend either on a woman's recollection of her prenatal visits or
on data contained in her medical record. Both sources can be flawed. For
example, if a woman changes her source of care during pregnancy, only
OCR for page 28
28
PRENATAL CARE: REACHING MOTHERS, REACHING INFANTS
the date when she started care at the site used immediately before delivery
may be noted in her medical records. If these same records are used to
complete the birth certificate the source of data on which most research
in this area is based carlier prenatal visits will be ignored.
The questionable accuracy of birth certificates is substantiated by a
study of the 1972 National Natality Survey, in which the number of
prenatal visits listed on birth certificates was compared with survey data.
Perfect agreement was found in only 16 percent of the cases.6 In another
study, Land and Vaughan reviewed Missouri birth certificate data for 1980
and found that hospitals that obtained information on prenatal care
exclusively from the mother reported earlier prenatal care and more visits
than those using the prenatal record only or a combination of the prenatal
record and information from the mother.7 Another limitation of birth
certificate data is that not all states request information about ethnic origin
or the mother's marital status.* Despite such problems, birth certificates
remain the best generally available source of data on participation in
prenatal care. In particular, they can be used to compare patterns of use
across states and populations, and they facilitate analysis of trends.
Each of the three measures also has unique limitations. Counting the
number of prenatal visits, while appealing in its simplicity, ignores the
distribution of those visits over the pregnancy. The recommended ACOG
schedule speaks as much to the timing of prenatal visits as to their absolute
number. In particular, counting visits obscures the relationship between
prenatal care and preterm delivery. Even if they follow the recommended
prenatal schedule, women who deliver prematurely will obviously have fewer
prenatal visits than women who deliver at full term. Unless a statistical
adjustment is made for length of gestation, the association of preterm delivery
with fewer prenatal visits may appear causal, when, in fact, it probably is not.
The second measure, based on the reported date of the first prenatal
visit, emphasizes the recommendation that care should begin "early," in
the first trimester of pregnancy. Generally, care beginning in the second
trimester is referred to as "delayed," and care deferred until the last
trimester is termed "late." Although this measure overcomes some of the
problems that the frequency index presents, it does not address the fact
that early care does not necessarily mean continuous care. For example, a
woman may register early in pregnancy to help arrange hospitalization for
delivery but not appear again until the third trimester. Despite this
shortcoming, the time-of-onset measure is commonly used because the
data needed to compute it are widely available.
*The 1989 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, overseen by the National
Center for Health Statistics, recommends several changes that, if adopted by all states, should
improve analyses of the use and effectiveness of prenatal care and of interstate differences.
OCR for page 29
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICENT PRENATAL CARE?
29
The third method, primarily the Kessner index, provides a more precise,
multidimensional measure of prenatal care; however, it is complicated to
compute, and for many births data are lacking on one or more of the three
variables that make up the index (month in which prenatal care was begun,
number of visits, and gestational age). A number of modified versions of the
Kessner index have been proposed, including one by Kotelchuck.8
The measure used most often in this volume is the trimester in which
prenatal care was begun, using the terms "early, delayed, and late," as just
defined. The terms "adequate, intermediate, and inadequate" are Kessner
index phrases, also defined above. The term "insufficient" is used as a
general description of care that is neither adequate nor ~n~atea early In
pregnancy; similarly, "sufficient" is used as a general label to describe care
that begins early in pregnancy and is sustained until delivery.
A final point: Where vital statistics data are used in this chapter, the data
technically refer to infants rather than mothers, because each record is
based on an individual birth certificate. However, since multiple births are
relatively infrequent (21 per 1,000 live births in 1985) and few women
have more than one birth in any year, the terms "women," "mothers," and
"births" are often used interchangeably.
CURRENT PATTERNS OF USE*
· ·,- . 1 1
According to 1985 birth certificate data for the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, 76.2 percent of all infants were born to women who obtained early
prenatal care, 18.1 percent to women who delayed care, 4.0 percent to women
who obtained care late, and 1.7 percent to mothers who had no prenatal care
at all (Table 1.11. In absolute numbers, of the approximately 3.8 million
babies born in the United States in 1985, about 2.8 million were born to
women who began prenatal care early in pregnancy, about 663,000 to women
who delayed care, some 150,000 tO women who obtained care late, and about
61,000 to women who had no prenatal care at all (Table 1.21.
When vital statistics are analyzed to determine rates of adequate care
rather than trimester of onset, a slightly different picture emerges. Hughes
et al. found that in 1985 only 68.2 percent of all women obtained adequate
care, 23.9 percent had an intermediate level of care, and 7.9 percent of all
women had inadequate care.9
The following sections describe women's use of prenatal care as
measured by six sociodemographic factors: race or ethnic origin, age,
education, birth order, marital status, and income.
*All data in this section are vital statistics compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics,
unless otherwise noted.
OCR for page 30
30
PRENATAL CARE: REACHING MOTHERS, REACHING INFANTS
TABLE 1.1 Month of Pregnancy in Which Prenatal Care Was Begun
(Percent), by Age and Race, United States, 198S
Month Care Begun (%)
Age 1-3 4-6 7-9 None
White
Under 15 38.3 39.8 15.1 6.9
15-19 56.8 32.3 8.0 2.9
20~24 74.7 19.3 4.3 1.6
25-29 85.5 11.4 2.2 0.9
30~34 87.5 9.9 1.8 0.7
3~39 84.5 12.0 2.4 1.1
40+ 75.1 18.2 4.5 2.2
Total 79.4 15.8 3.4 1.3
Black
Under 15 34.4 46.1 13.6 5.9
15-19 47.3 38.3 10.0 4.4
2~24 60.1 29.3 7.1 3.5
25-29 70.3 22.3 4.7 2.7
3~34 73.2 20.1 4.1 2.6
35-39 71.2 21.5 4.4 3.0
40+ 63.5 26.8 5.7 4.0
Total 61.8 28.2 6.7 3.4
All Races
Under 15 36.0 43.5 14.2 6.3
15-19 53.9 34.1 8.6 3.4
2~24 71.7 21.4 4.9 2.0
2~29 83.1 13.1 2.6 1.1
3~34 85.5 11.4 2.2 1.0
35-39 82.4 13.4 2.8 1.3
40+ 72.9 19.8 4.8 2.5
Total 76.2 18.1 4.0 1.7
SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final nasality
statistics, 1985. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 4 Suppl. DHHS Pub. No.
(PHS)87- 1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1987.
Racial and Ethnic Subgroups
Racial disparities in the use of prenatal care are substantial (Table 1.1~.
In 1985, black women were far less likely than white women to begin care
early and twice as likely to receive late or no care. In absolute numbers,
almost 140,000 white infants and almost 60,000 black infants were born to
OCR for page 31
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
3
women who had late or no prenatal care (Table 1.21. The higher rates of
late or no care among black women are probably due to the greater
concentration in this population of several risk factors associated with
insufficient prenatal care: limited education, being unmarried (in 1985, 11
percent of white births were to unmarried women versus 57 percent of
black births), and, in particular, poverty.
TABLE 1.2 Month of Pregnancy in Which Prenatal Care Was Begun
(Number), by Age and Race, United States, 198S
Month Care Begun (no.)
Unknown
Age 1-3 4-6 7-9 None Total (no.) (no.)
Mite
Under 15 1,511 1,569 595 272 4,101 154
15-19 176,527 100,276 24,755 9,130 318,725 8,037
20-24 654,059 169,405 37,860 14,393 894,195 18,478
25-29 836,861 112,063 21,594 8,539 997,233 18,176
30~34 498,630 S6,642 10,345 4,125 580,398 10,656
35-39 143,587 20,364 4,153 1,868 173,681 3,709
40+ 16,853 4,089 999 493 23,040 606
Total 2,328,028 464,408 100,301 38,820 2,991,373 59,816
Blac1:
Under 15 1,947 2,607 767 335 5,860 204
15-19 61,324 49,716 12,909 5,722 134,270 4,599
20-24 120,704 58,862 14,197 6,988 207,330 6,579
25-29 103,869 32,851 6,974 3,960 152,306 4,652
30~34 55,355 15,176 3,094 1,967 78,129 2,537
35-39 17,986 5,438 1,098 746 26,216 948
40+ 2,495 1,053 224 157 4,082 153
Total 363,680 165,703 39,263 19,875 608,193 19,672
All Races
Under 15 3,547 4,283 1,398 623 10,220 369
15-19 244,723 155,073 39,129 15,364 467,485 13,196
20~24 799,206 238,463 54,921 22,197 1,141,320 26,533
25-29 978,340 15i,195 31,061 13,202 1,201,350 24,552
30-34 582,791 77,647 14,913 6,549 696,354 14,454
35-39 172,441 28,120 5,826 2,814 214,336 5,135
40+ 20,849 5,669 1,367 718 29,496 893
Total 2,801,897 663,450 148,615 61,467 3,760,561 85,132
SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final nasality
statistics, 1985. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 4 Suppl. DHHS Pub. No.
(PHS)87-1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1987.
OCR for page 32
32
PRENATAL CARE: REACHING MOTHERS, REACHING INFANTS
TABLE 1.3 Percentage of Babies Born to Women Obtaining Early and
Late or No Care, by Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Origin, Various
Reporting Areas, 1978, 1982, and 1985
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Central
Care Puerto and South
Received Mexican Rican Cuban American Other Total White Black Total
1 978a
Early 58.7 47.7 75.9 51.5 67.0 57.0 80.7 59.1 77.0
Late or none 11.5 19.9 6.5 16.0 8.3 13.1 3.3 10.9 4.6
1 982b
Early 60.7 54.5 79.3 58.5 66.0 61.0 81.2 60.1 76.9
Irate or none 12.0 17.2 4.9 13.4 9.3 12.1 3.8 10.5 5.2
l985c
Early 60.0 58.3 82.5 60.6 65.8 61.2 81.5 60.5 77.1
Irate or none 12.9 15.5 3.7 12.5 9.4 12.4 4.0 10.7 5.4
SOURCES:
aNational Center for Health Statistics. Births of Hispanic parentage, 1978. Prepared
by Ventura SJ and Heuser RL. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 29, No. 12 Suppl.
DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)81-1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1981 (17 states and the District of
Columbia reporting).
National Center for Health Statistics. Births of Hispanic parentage, 1982. Prepared
by Ventura SJ. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 34, No. 4 Suppl. DHHS Pub. No.
(PHS)85-1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1985 (23 states and the District of Columbia
reporting).
National Center for Health Statistics. Births of Hispanic parentage, 198S. Prepared
by Ventura S) and Heuser RL. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 11 Suppl.
DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)88-1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1988 (23 states and the District of
Columbia reporting).
Use of prenatal care by mothers of Hispanic origin has been analyzed for
the District of Columbia and the 23 states that routinely collect informa-
tion on Hispanic births. More than 92 percent of the total U.S. Hispanic
population lived in these jurisdictions in 1985, and over 370,000 births to
mothers of Hispanic origin were reported. Of these births, the vast majority
(95 percent) were listed as being of white race on the birth certificate,
two-thirds were to women of Mexican origin, and nearly half (47 percent)
were to mothers who had been born in the United States.~°
Generally, Hispanic mothers are substantially less likely than non-
Hispanic white mothers to begin prenatal care early and are three times as
likely to obtain late or no care. Moreover, as Table 1.3 shows, Hispanic
mothers as a group are more likely than non-Hispanic black mothers to
OCR for page 33
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
TABLE 1.4 Percentage of Babies Born to Women Obtaining Early and
Late or No Care, for Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian, White,
and Black Subgroups and for All Races, United States, 1985
33
Asian or Pacific Islander
Ameri-
Care Japa- Hawai- Fili- can All
Received Chinese nese fan pino Other Total Indian White Black Races
Early 82.3 85.8 70.6 77.2 70.7 75.0 60.3 79.4 61.8 76.2
I ate or 4.2 2.7 6.5 i.6 7.8 6.2 11.5 4.7 10.1 5.7
none
SOURCE: Unpublished vital statistics data from the National Center for Health
Statistics.
begin care late or not at all.* Interestingly, mothers of Cuban background
are an anomaly among Hispanic women in their use of prenatal services.
They were even more likely than non-Hispanic white mothers to begin
prenatal care early in pregnancy, and only 3.7 percent of Cuban mothers
in 1985 had late or no care. Such subgroup diversity suggests that the
problem of inadequate care among Hispanic women is not due to Hispanic
origin per se, but rather to other factors probably income, education,
previous experiences with other health care systems, or a combination of the
three.
Other major U.S. subgroups whose use of prenatal care has been
analyzed include American Indian (not including native Alaskans) and
Asian or Pacific Islander women (Table 1.4~. Out of 3.8 million births in
the United States in 1985, there were about 41,000 to American Indians
and 112,000 to Asian or Pacific Islander women. In that same year,
Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino women exhibited particularly high rates of
participation in care and were less likely than white women to obtain late
or no care; Hawaiian women and other subgroups of women in this
category (including Indian, Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese, Korean, and
other Asian or Pacific Islander women) placed between white and black
women in the late or no-care category. American Indian women, however,
were more likely than either white or black women to obtain late or no
care.
Use of prenatal care also varies with a pregnant woman's place of birth.
For example, two studies of prenatal care use among selected groups in
New York City found that recent immigrants were less likely to obtain late
*Although Table 1.3 and some others that follow present data for several years in addition to
1985, discussion of trends does not begin until later in this chapter. Here, the focus is on 1985
patterns of use only.
OCR for page 34
34
PRENATAL CARE: REACHING MOTHER, ACHING INFANTS
or no care than women born in the United States. i2 By contrast, a large
follow-back survey of 1986 births in Massachusetts found that foreign-
born women were more likely to obtain late or no care than U.S.-born
women (24 percent versus 37 percent, respectively).~3 Differences in local
health care systems, in the magnitude of language barriers, and in the
immigrant populations themselves may account for such variation. Most
experts in maternity services believe that recently arrived immigrants are
at high risk of obtaining insufficient prenatal care.
Age
a
Timing of entry into prenatal care also varies with the age of the mother
(Table 1.19. In general, young mothers are at high risk of obtaining late or
no prenatal care, with the greatest risk for the youngest mothers.~4
Adolescent mothers are the age group least likely to obtain early prenatal
care and most likely to begin care late or not at all, but there are some
interesting variations in utilization between black and white teenage
mothers, as shown in Table 1.1. Although white mothers under IS are
slightly more likely than black mothers under IS to begin prenatal care in
the first trimester, they are also more likely to begin care in the third
trimester or not at all. The number of births to these very young women,
however, is small 10,220 in 1985.
Use of prenatal care among teenagers has also been analyzed using the
more refined measure of adequacy. Examining the adequacy of care is
particularly appropriate for this group, because teenagers may be more
likely than older women to participate in care episodically. Using 1980
National Natality Survey data, one study found that mothers under age 20
were nearly twice as likely to have inadequate care as mothers age 20 to 24
(16.4 and 8.4 percent, respectively).~5
Older mothers, much as teenagers, tend to delay entry into prenatal care
(Table 1.1~. Mothers age 40 and over are less likely than mothers age 25
to 39 to begin care in the first trimester and more likely to obtain care late
or not at all. This tendency increases as women get older, and women over
age 4S become as likely as or more likely than mothers age IS to 19 to
obtain late or no care. As for very young teenagers, however, the number
of births to older mothers is small—fewer than 30,000 to women age 40 or
above in 1985.
Education
Timing of the first prenatal visit correlates highly with level of educa-
tion. In 198S, 88 percent of mothers with at least some college education
began care early in pregnancy, compared with S8 percent of mothers who
OCR for page 35
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
35
TABLE 1.5 Percentage of Babies Born to Women Obtaining Late or No
Care, by Race and Education, United States, 197S, 1980, and 198S
Years of
Education 1985a l98oa l975b
White
0 8 14.1 13.4 13.6
9-1 1 9.6 8.5 8.6
12 3.5 2.9 3.2
13+ 1.5 1.4 1.6
Total 4.0 3.8 4.2
Black
0~8 15.7 15.2 15.8
9-1 1 14.4 12.6 13.3
12 9.3 7.7 9.3
13+ 4.9 4.5 5.8
Total 10.1 9.0 10.9
All Races
0~8 14.7 14.1 14.4
9-1 1 1 1.2 9.8 10.2
12 4.6 3.8 4.2
13+ 2.0 1.9 2.1
Total 5.3 4.8 5.7
SOURCES:
aPublished and unpublished vital statistics data from the National Center for Health
Statistics.
bNational Center for Health Statistics. Prenatal care, United States, 1969-75.
Prepared by TaFel SM. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 21, No. 33. DHEW Pub. No.
(PHS)78-1911. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
had less than a high school education.~7 Similarly, the probability that a
pregnant woman will obtain care late or not at all decreases steadily as her
educational level increases (Table 1.51.
Given the strong association between higher levels of education and
early enrollment in prenatal care, it is useful to consider the proportion of
mothers in various subpopulations who have completed high school. In
both 1984 and 198S, 79 percent of all mothers had completed at least 12
years of schooling—82 percent of white mothers, 68 percent of black
mothers. In 1984, more than twice the proportion of Native American
mothers (American Indians and Native Alaskans) as white mothers had
less than 12 years of education (38 percent versus 18 percent). Native
American mothers were also more likely than black mothers not to have
OCR for page 36
36
PRENATAL CARE: REACHING MOTHERS, REACHING INFANTS
TABLE 1.6 Percentage of Babies Born to Women Obtaining Late or No
Care, by Birth Order and Race, Reporting Areas, 197S, 1980, and 1985
Birth Order l9S5a l98oa l975b
White
First 4.1 3.8 4.8
Second 4.0 3 5 3 9
Third 5.4 4.5 4.9
Fourth 7.8 6.6 7.0
Fifth+ 13.1 11.3 12.6
Black
First 8.8 7.8 9.6
Second 9.4 8.4 10.2
Third 10.6 9.0 10.6
Fourth 12.9 10.6 11.7
Fifth+ 16.5 13.5 13.9
All Races
First 4.9 4.6 5.6
Second 4.8 4.4 4.9
Third 6.4 5.5 6.0
Fourth 9.1 7.7 8.1
Fifth+ 14.2 12.8 13.2
SOURCES:
aPublished and unpublished vital statistics data from the National Center for Health
Statistics.
bNational Center for Health Statistics. Prenatal care, United States, 1969-75.
Prepared by Taffel SM. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 21, No. 33. DHEW Pub. No.
(PHS)78-1911. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
completed high school.~9 For mothers of Hispanic origin, 21 states (not
including California and Texas) reported in 1984 on educational attainment;
overall, 4S percent of Hispanic mothers giving birth in that year had not
completed at least 12 years of school, with subgroup proportions ranging
from S9 percent for Mexican mothers to 22 percent for Cuban mothers.20
Birth Order
Obtaining late or no prenatal care is also associated with birth order. In
general, the more children a woman has had, the more likely she is to delay
care or to seek none at all. In 198S, close to 5 percent of both first and
second children were born to mothers who obtained late or no care (Table
1.61. About 6 percent of third births fell into this category, however, and
the numbers increased to 9 and 14 percent for fourth and fifth children,
OCR for page 43
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
TABLE 1.10 Continued
43
State
1 985a
1979a
1975b
l969b
Tennessee 5.5 5.3 6.8 11.1
Texas 11.0 8.1 9.4 13.1
Utah 3.1 2.6 2.0 3.8
Vermont 3.5 3.4 4.8 7.0
Virginia 4.0 3.4
Washington 4.7 3.6 3.8 4.7
West Virginia 6.1 6.3 8.8 11.5
Wisconsin 3.0 2.7 2.6 4.6
Wyoming 4.3 4.7 5.1 7.1
Total 5.7 5.1 6.0 8.2
SOURCES:
aHughes D, Johnson K, Rosenbaum S. Simons I, and Butler E. The Heals of Amenca's
Children: Maternal and Child Heals Data Book. Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense
Fund, 1988.
bNational Center for Health Statistics. Prenatal care, United States, 1969-75.
Prepared by Taffel SM. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 21, No. 33. DHEVV Pub. No.
(PHS)78-1911. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
in New York in 198S was roughly three times as likely as a woman in
Michigan or Connecticut to obtain late or no care, and a nonwhite woman
in New Mexico or New York was three times as likely as a nonwhite
woman in Massachusetts to obtain late or no prenatal care. The analyses
also show that states with low percentages of mothers obtaining early care
also tend to have high percentages of mothers obtaining late or no prenatal
care. In 1985, the three jurisdictions with the lowest percentages of women
obtaining early prenatal care and the highest percentages of women with
late or no care were New Mexico, the District of Columbia, and Texas.36
Even greater variations in levels of prenatal care can exist within states.
For example, although New York State as a whole reports that 9 percent of
pregnant women in 1985 had late or no prenatal care (Table 1.10), the
percentage was about 18 percent in New York City and far higher in some
neighborhoods: in the Mott Haven district of the Bronx, more than 50
percent of births in 1985 were to women with no care or care that began
in the third trimester.37
Public health authorities and health planners have long recognized that
certain communities show particularly poor rates of prenatal care use, and
many of the recent state and local initiatives to combat infant mortality (see
Appendix A) have included careful "mapping" of areas where inadequate use
is prevalent. The maps in Figures 1.2 to 1.S show rates of insufficient prenatal
care for various geographic areas. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 are of Wisconsin and
a
OCR for page 44
~4
DILL If: ~C~G ~O~, FIG ~~
. ~
s _ =1a~o1 Births
I\ \ \ \ _ ^
^
~:::::~:~:S::::::]
~~:~.~.~.'e's'~'.I
:::::::~:~:S:S:S:1
Percentage of Births
~3.0
F:~:!?Ss3~91 3.1 10 5.0
5.110 7,0
~ ~ ~ 1-
_ >10.0
FIGURE 1.1 Percentage of births to women obtaining late or no prenatal care, United
Smtes, ~1 races, 1985. SOURCE: Children De~nse Fund.
Norm CamUna and deeply, r~ec~e~$ patio of lam or no care and
patters of inadequate care in 1985. These maps rheas that rural as wed
as urban areas exhibit pocked of insufficient prenatal care. Figures 1.4
and 1.5 present a 1985 geographic profile of late or no registration in
prenatal care for the District of Columbia and New Haven, Connecticut.
Although each of these maps takes a somewhat idios~cradc approach to
defining and displaying geographic variations in use of prenatal care,
they electives communicate the simple fact that pockets of need exist
and can be pinpointed. Such maps also show that aggregate data, both
state and national can obscure the fact that use of prenatal care can be
exceedingly poor in some smaller areas.
These geographic "hot spots' are perhaps best explained by variations
in income levels within states and communizes. ~ noted Barber, low
income is among the most important Actors explaining insufficient use
of prenatal care. Thus, census track with high concen~abons of
low-income individuals are likely to hue high rates of insufficient
prenatal care. Other Actors that probably account for these geographic
OCR for page 45
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
45
Percentage of Births
~<3.0
.0 town
>5.0
.~o
Milwaukee
FIGURE 1.2 Percentage of births to women obtaining late or no prenatal care,
Wisconsin, by county, all races, 1985. SOURCE: Wisconsin Department of Health and
Social Services.
concentrations of need include local inadequacies in the health care
system and transportation problems. These obstacles to care and others
are taken up in Chapter 2.
TRENDS IN THE USE OF PRENATAL CARE
Several special studies3~42 combined with U.S. nasality statistics pub-
lished by the National Center for Health Statistics,43 make possible an
OCR for page 46
46
it,
-
-
~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~
._
Cal
Cal ~
~ o
~ :z
Cal
. .
_ LL1
.
Lo a!
Go _
o
an
Cal
.5
-
o
,6.,o.'.~o ~~
I-:' ~ / ~
mu. .~) ~ 2-
~-~.~_
no
o
5-. o
z ~
so ~
~4
~ o
Cal
~ ._
._
._
be ~
.5
.5
o .
o
._
4 -
o
~4
of
~ As- .# ,
. - o
CO
._
m
-
o
a) °
V
a' ~
0 0
0 0
A
4 -
o
wo4
o
of
_
a'
.e
.—
~ -
·
~ no
At ·=
· -
no
- ~
Or ¢; ~
_4 ~ ~
~ Cal ~
._
U.
·_
an
OCR for page 47
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
-
Percentage of Births
~ <5.0
C~ 5.0 to9.9
~ > 10.0
\~3
47
~ - ~ ,6
2 ~
8 /
FIGURE 1.4 Percentage of births to women obtaining late or no prenatal care, District
of Columbia, by ward, 1985. SOURCE: D.C. Department of Human Services.
analysis of trends in the use of prenatal care from 1969 to 1985. Table 1.11
shows steady improvement from 1969 through 1980 in the percentage of
births to mothers receiving prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Since 1980, however, this percentage has remained stable or decreased.
Among black women, declines in early use of prenatal care were registered
in 1981,1982, and 198S.
Table 1.12, which displays rates of late or no care, reveals a particularly
troubling trend. There has apparently been an increase since 1980 in the
percentage of births to women with late or no prenatal care. Although this
trend applies to all races, the increase is more pronounced among black
women. In 1981, 8.8 percent of births to black women were in this
category; by 1985, 10 percent were. In fact, 198S rates of late or no
prenatal care for black women are about the same as those recorded in
1976; improvements in the interim have, in effect, been erased. An analysis of
trends in the use of prenatal care between 1970 and 1983 found that early
enrollment for black mothers in 1982 was 3.6 percentage points below what
it would have been if the 1976 to 1980 trend had continued, and 10.8
percentage points below the expected level based on the 1970 to 197S trend.44
OCR for page 48
48
PRENATAL Cal: ACHING MOTHER, ACHING INFANTS
Given the size and diversity of this country, it is important to consider
whether all states mirror these national trends or whether a few states are
responsible for observed changes. Table 1.10 shows use of prenatal care for
selected years from 1969 to 1985, based on national data for all 50 states
and the District of Columbia. (Although 1969 data are not available from
13 states and in 1975 8 states had not yet begun to collect data on time of
entry into prenatal care, general state trends can nonetheless be seen.)
There was a clear pattern of improved use of prenatal care on the state
level in the early 1970s. All 37 reporting states and the District of
Columbia showed smaller percentages of women obtaining late or no care
in 197S, as compared to 1969. Most states demonstrated decreases of
\ y~ ~~\~
:'=:
Percentage of Births
c 11.0
[I 11.0to15.0
>15.0
L_
-
FIGURE 1.5 Percentage of births to women obtaining late or no prenatal care, New
Haven, Connecticut, by neighborhood, all races, 1982-198S. SOURCE: de Andres P.
Backus L, Greene M, Pope E, Scholle R. Singleton C, and Triffin E. Targeting the
Problems behind New Haven's Infant Mortality Rate. A report of a community project
conducted by students at the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale
School of Medicine. New Haven, Ct. Spring 1985.
OCR for page 49
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
TABLE 1.11 Percentage of Babies Born to Women Obtaining Early
Care, by Race, United States, 1969-1985
49
Year White Black Total
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
72.4
72.4
73.0
73.6
74.9
7S.9
75.9
76.8
77.3
78.2
79.1
79.3
79.4
79.3
79.4
79.6
79.4
42.7
44.3
46.6
49.0
51.4
53.9
55.8
57.7
59.0
60.2
61.6
62.7
62.4
61.5
61.5
62.2
61.8
68.5
67.9
68.6
69.4
70.8
72.1
72.3
73.5
74.1
74.9
75.9
76.3
76.3
76.1
76.2
76.5
76.2
SOURCE: Published and unpublished vital statistics data from the National Center
for Health Statistics.
between 2S and 30 percent, and late or no care decreased by nearly 40
percent in several states between 1969 and 197S.
These favorable trends continued into the late 1970s. From 1975 to
1979, all but 7 of the 43 reporting jurisdictions showed continued declines
in the percentage of babies born to women who had received late or no
care. However, the rate of decline had slowed, and 6 of the 7 states showed
an increase.
Between 1979 and 1985, the increase in the percentage of women
obtaining late or no care evidenced in national statistics was mirrored in
states from every region of the country. For example, although the number
of women beginning care late or not at all in the District of Columbia
dropped by 65 percent between 1969 and 1979, the number increased 43
percent between 1979 and 198S. In Oregon and Indiana, the percentages
of women who had no prenatal care or none before the seventh month of
pregnancy were greater in 1985 than in any other year since 1975. Maine,
Massachusetts, and Utah are states with generally Tow percentages of late
or no prenatal care, yet they, too, experienced increases between 1979 and
1985. South Carolina and Florida experienced upward trends of about 30
percent each between 1979 and 1985. Overall, 20 states experienced an
increase in the percentage of women who obtained late or no care during
OCR for page 50
so
PRENATAL CARE: REACHING MOTHERS, REACHING INFANTS
TABLE 1.12 Percentage of Babies Born to Women Obtaining Late or
No Care, by Race, United States, 1969-1985
Year White Black Total
1969 6.3 18.2 7.3
1970 6.2 16.6 7.9
1971 5.8 11.6 7.2
1972 5.5 13.2 7.0
1973 5.4 12.4 6.7
1974 5.0 11.4 6.2
1975 5.0 10.5 6.0
1976 4.8 9.9 5.7
1977 4.7 9.6 5.6
1978 45 93 5 4
1979 4.3 8.9 5.1
1980 4.3 8.8 5.1
1981 4.3 9.1 5.2
1982 4.5 9.6 5.5
1983 4.6 9.7 5.6
1984 4.7 9.6 5.6
1985 4.7 10.0 5.7
SOURCE: Published and unpublished vital statistics data from the National Center
for Health Statistics.
this period, and a dozen more states showed no decrease. The Ingram et al.
study of the use of prenatal care between 1970 and 1983 confirms the
finding that the trends observed on the national {eve] reflect changes in
many states from all regions.45
It is not known what factors account for these disturbing trends,
although a number of social, economic, and other changes in the 1980s
have been offered as explanations. These include the increase in unem-
ployment in the early 1980s and the resulting loss of employer-based
health insurance and personal income; the increasing proportion of
women of childbearing age living in poverty; and the increasing number of
employed individuals who have inadequate or no health insurance, along
with the continuing erosion of maternity benefits under private plans.
Other reasons include the cutbacks in Medicaid eligibility in the early
1980s and the declining proportion of the poor covered by Medicaid; the
increasing proportion of births to unmarried women and the growth in the
number of households headed by single women; and the increasingly
limited capacity of the health care systems relied on by Tow-income women
for prenatal care, caused by funding restrictions and the malpractice
squeeze, which is shrinking the pool of obstetric care providers. Many of
these issues are discussed in Chapter 2.
OCR for page 51
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
51
Other important trends between about 1970 and the mid-1980s include
the following:
a. The gap between black and white rates of prenatal care use narrowed
between 1970 and 1983, although the pace at which it was closing slowed
toward the latter half of that interval.46
b. Adolescent mothers were more likely to obtain early care in 198S
than they were in 1970. Generally, there has been a decline in late or no
care among teenagers; however, the decline has been least for the youngest
mothers, and, as among older women, progress has slowed in the 1980's.47
c. As for black women, increasing percentages of some subgroups of
Hispanic women—particularly Mexican women—obtained late or no care
in the 1980s (Table 1.31.
d. In recent years, there has been virtually no improvement in the
proportion of women with little education who obtained late or no care
(Table 1.5).
e. Between 1970 and 1985, unmarried mothers, particularly unmarried
white mothers, exhibited some of the most rapid decreases in late
registration for prenatal care (Table 1.79.
f. Data from 1975, 1980, and 1985 consistently show that for black
women, first births are the least likely to have had late or no prenatal
care; for white women, second births are the least likely to fall in this
category (Table 1.63.
SUMMARY
Several interrelated demographic factors put women at risk for insuffi-
cient prenatal care: being in a racial or ethnic minority group (especially
American Indian, black, and Hispanic), being under 20 (particularly, under
15), having less than a high school education, higher parity, and being
unmarried. Geographic analysis also reveals that insufficient use of prenatal
care is often concentrated in areas that can be easily identified. All of these risk
factors, in turn, are closely related to poverty, which is one of the most
important factors consistently associated with insufficient prenatal care.
Unfortunately, the steady progress of the 1970s in drawing more women
into prenatal care early in pregnancy ended in the 1980s. On the important
measure of late or no care, there has actually been a reversal of progress,
particularly for black women.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Standards for Obstetric-
Gynecologic Services, 6th ed. Washington, D.C., 1985.
OCR for page 52
52
PRENATAL CARE: REACHING MOTHERS, REACHING INFANTS
2. American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal Care. Washington, D.C., 1983.
3. Morehead MA, Donaldson RS, and Seravalli MS. Comparisons between OEO
Neighborhood Health Centers and other health care providers of ratings of the
quality of health care. Am. J. Public Health 61:1294-1306, 1971.
4. Hughey MI. Routine prenatal and gynecologic care in prepaid group practice. J.
Am. Med. Assoc. 256:177~1777, 1986.
5. Kessner DM, Singer J. Kalk CE, and Schlesinger ER. Infant death: An analysis by
maternal risk and health care. In Contrasts in Health Status, Vol. 1. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1973.
6. National Center for Health Statistics. Comparability of reporting between the birth
certificate and the National Natality Survey. Prepared by Querec U. Vital and
Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 83. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS)80-1357. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980.
7. National Center for Health Statistics. Birth certificate completion procedures and
the accuracy of Missouri birth certificate data. Prepared by Land G and Vaughan
B. Priorities in Health Statistics: Proceedings of the 19th National Meeting of the
Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics, August 1983. DHHS Pub. No.
(PHS)81-1214. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983, pp. 263-265.
8. Kotelchuck M. The mismeasurement of prenatal care adequacy in the U.S. and a
proposed alternative two-part index. Paper presented at the American Public
Health Association annual meeting, New Orleans, 1987.
9. Hughes D, Johnson K, Rosenbaum S. Simons J. and Butler E. The Health of America's
Children: Maternal and Child Health Data Book. Washington, D.C.: Children's
Defense Fund, 1988. The definition of adequate care used in these analyses differs
slightly from that in the Kessner index: gestational age at which measurement begins
is 17 weeks in this modified index versus 13 or fewer weeks in the Kessner index.
10. National Center for Health Statistics. Births of Hispanic parentage, 1985. Prepared
by Ventura SI. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 11 Suppl. DHHS Pub.
No. (PHS)88-1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1988.
11. Chao S. Imaizumi S. Gorman S. and Lowenstein R. Reasons for absence of prenatal
care and its consequences. New York: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Harlem Hospital Center, 1984.
12. Kalmuss D, Darabi KF, Lopez I, Caro FG, Marshall E, and Carter A. Barriers to
Prenatal Care: An Examination of Use of Prenatal Care Among Low-Income
Women in New York City. New York: Community Service Society, 1987.
13. Johnson S. Gibbs E, Kogan M, Kapp C, and Hansen OH. Massachusetts Prenatal
Care Survey Factors Related to Prenatal Care Utilization. Boston: SPRANS
Prenatal Care Project, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 1987.
14. Hughes D et al. Op. cit., p. 29.
15. The Financing of Maternity Care in the United States. New York: Alan Guttmacher
Institute, 1987, p. 45.
16. National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics. Unpublished data,
1984.
17. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final nasality statistics,
1985. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 4 Suppl. DHHS Pub No.
(PHS)87- 1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1987, p. 9.
18. Ibid., p. 8.
19. National Center for Health Statistics. Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska
native births, United States, 1984. Prepared by Towel SM. Monthly Vital Statistics
Report, Vol. 36, No. 3 Suppl. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)87-1120. Hyattsville, Md., 1987.
OCR for page 53
WHO OBTAINS INSUFFICIENT PRENATAL CARE?
53
20. National Center for Health Statistics. Births of Hispanic parentage, 1985. Op. cit.
21. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final nasality statistics.
198S. Op. cit., table 2, p. 14.
22. National Center for Health Statistics. Prenatal care, United States, 1969-75.
Prepared by Taffel SM. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 21, No. 33. DHEW Pub.
No. (PHS)78-1911. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
23. Singh S. Torres A, and Forrest ID. The need for prenatal care in the United States:
Evidence from the 1980 National Natality Survey. Fam. Plan. Perspect.
17:118-124, 1985.
National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final nasality statistics,
1985. Op. cit., p. 7.
25. National Center for Health Statistics. Births of Hispanic parentage, 1985. Op. cit., p. 9.
26. Singh S et al. Op. cit., p. 121.
27. Ventura SJ and Hendershot GE. Infant health consequences of childbearing by
teenagers and older mothers. Public Health Rep. 99:138-146, 1984, p. 144.
28. Placek P. The 1980 National Natality Survey and National Fetal Mortality Survey:
Methods used and PHS agency participation. Public Health Rep. 99:111-116,
1984.
29. National Center for Health Statistics. National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle III
sample design weighting, and variance estimation. Prepared by Bachrach C, Horn
MC, Masher WD, and Shitmizu I. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 98.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1985.
30. Singh S et al. Op. cit.
31. Unpublished data from the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth, provided by
the Family Growth Statistics Branch, Division of Vital Statistics, National Center
for Health Statistics, U.S. Public Health Service.
32. Johnson S et al. Op. cit., p. 19.
33. Singh S et al. Op. cit., p. 120.
34. Ibid., p. 123.
35. Ingram DD, Makuc D, and Kleinman IC. National and state trends in use of
prenatal care, 1970-83. Am. J. Public Health 76:415-423, 1986, p. 417.
36. Hughes D et al. Op. cit., p. 70.
37. Kalmuss D et al. Op. Cit., p. ii.
38. Ingram DD et al. Op. cit.
39. Johnson K, Rosenbaum S. and Simons I. The Data Book. Washington, D.C.:
Children's Defense Fund, 1985.
40. Hughes D, Johnson K, Rosenbaum S. and Simons J. Maternal and Child Health
Data Book: The Health of America's Children. Washington, D.C.: Children's
Defense Fund, 1986.
41. Hughes D, Johnson K, Rosenbaum S. Simons 3, and Butler E. The Health of
America's Children: Maternal and Child Health Data Book. Washington, D.C.:
Children's Defense Fund, 1987.
42. Hughes D et al. The Health of America's Children: Maternal and Child Health Data
Book. 1988. Op. cit.
43. National Center for Health Statistics. Prenatal care, United States, 1969-75. Op. cit.
44. Ingram DD et al. Op. cit., p. 420.
4S. Ibid., p. 421-422.
46. Ibid.,p.415.
47. lohnson K. The demographics of prenatal care utilization. Paper prepared for the
Committee on Outreach for Prenatal Care. Institute of Medicine, Washington,
D.C., 1988.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
insufficient prenatal
