Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Introduction
Accurate assessment of prenatal care
utilization is the critical first step in the
development of public health programs to
improve prenatal care accessibility and
ultimately to improve birth outcomes. The
assessment of the adequacy of prenatal
care utilization is heavily shaped by the
way in which utilization is measured.
Currently, there are two widely used
measures of adequacy of prenatal care
utilization: the trimester of prenatal care
initiation and the Kessner/Institute of
Medicine (IOM) Adequacy of Prenatal
Care Index.' Trimester of initiation will
not be examined here because it provides
no information about prenatal care utilization after initiation; it has been critically
examined elsewhere.2'3 The Kessner Index-the principal adequacy of prenatal
care utilization index in use in the United
States today-includes information about
both the timing of prenatal care initiation
and prenatal care visits after initiation. It
was published in 1973 as part of an
IOM-supported study of infant mortality
in New York City.' The Kessner Index
combines two continuous numeric measures (month prenatal care begins and
number of visits, adjusting for length of
gestation) and rigidly links them into a
very easy to understand index with three
levels of adequacy (Adequate, Intermediate, and Inadequate). To be rated Adequate on the Kessner Index, one must
start prenatal care in the first trimester
and have nine prenatal care visits for a
normal-length pregnancy.
Table 1 presents the Kessner Index
algorithm as initially published. In this
original description, public or private
obstetric service was a third factor, but
this factor has been dropped by all
subsequent researchers because the type
of service is not noted on the standard US
Gestation
(Weeks)
Adequatea
Datbase
The database for this paper is the
National Center for Health Statistics'
1980 National Natality Survey, a representative sample of US births in 1980.8 This
survey uses a follow-back methodology
involving the collection of data from four
sources: maternal retrospective information, physician and hospital records, radiologic records, and birth and death certificates. Data are available on 9941 live
births, oversampled (4:1) for low-birthweight infants. Responses were weighted
by a poststratification ratio estimate procedure to be representative of the 1980 US
birth cohort. Prenatal care information is
absent for 15% of the births. All missing
data were imputed via a categorical
matrix hot-deck methodology. Details of
the survey and study population are
described elsewhere.9
All data used in this paper are
derived from the birth certificate data
source only. The birth certificate data
were chosen because they are readily
available to the public health community,
they are the principal database for the
assessment of a community's prenatal
care utilization adequacy, and they are
available for all married and unmarried
women in the 1980 National Natality
Survey.
Inadequateb
Intermediate
aln addition to the specific number of visits indicated for adequate care, the interval to the first
prenatal visit had to be 13 weeks or less (first trimester), and the delivery must have taken place on
a private obstetrical service.
bin addition to the specific number of visits indicated for inadequate care, all women who started
their prenatal care during the third trimester (28 weeks or later) were considered inadequate.
cFor this gestation group, care was considered inadequate if the time of the first visit was not stated.
Source. Reprinted with permission from Infant Death: An Analysis by Maternal Risk and Health Care
(Table 2-3, p 59). Copyright 01973, National Academy of Sciences. Courtesy of the National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Trimester of
% Of
Initiation of Care
Inadequate, %
Intermediate, %
Adequate, %
Total Births
1
2
3ornocare
% of total births
1.4
1.8
4.6
7.7
10.6
15.7
65.9
...
...
65.9
77.9
17.5
4.6
...
26.3
Note. Percentages are those of all US births. Concordance of trimester and index rating = 86.2%.
Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Source. Percentages are based on an analysis of birth certificate data from the 1980 National
Natality Survey.8
women) predicts the Kessner Index rating. Only 13.8% of women have their ratings reduced owing to insufficient visits.
Second, the Kessner Index does not
distinguish inadequacy of care due to late
initiation from inadequacy of care due to
insufficient number of visits. Table 3
shows that these two implicit subscales
have distinctive distributions. Overall,
24.7% of US women would be classified
differently if the two were measured
separately. More striking, 61.1% of women
starting prenatal care in the second
trimester (rated Intermediate by the Kess-
Kotelchuck
Trimester of
Initiation
of Care
Inadequate
(< 5), %
Intermediate
(5-8),%
Adequate
(. 9), %
% of
Total Births
1
2
3 or no care
% of total births
1.4
1.8
2.5
5.7
10.6
6.9
1.3
18.8
65.9
8.9
0.8
75.5
77.9
17.5
4.6
Note. Percentages are those of all US births. Concordance of trimester and number of visits =
75.3%. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Source. Percentages are based on an analysis of birth certificate data from the 1980 National
Natality Survey.8
Rating
Original Kessner
Extrapolated Kessnera
Adequate,%
Intermediate, %
Inadequate, %
65.9
26.3
7.7
29.2
54.5
16.3
Note. Percentages are those of all US births; they may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Source. Percentages are based on an analysis of birth certificate data from the 1980 National
Natality Survey.8
aRatings are based on trimester prenatal care began plus proportion of total visits recommended by
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists received (all recommended visits received
for a rating of Adequate and fewer than half the recommended visits received for a rating of
Inadequate).
Adequate
Week of
Intermediate
Inadequate
at Delivery
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
% of total
births
57.7
53.5
55.7
61.3
69.5
67.0
73.3
69.9
66.8
66.5
58.7
65.9
57.7
53.5
47.2
39.8
38.9
21.8
18.5
13.1
8.9
5.5
3.5
29.2
27.8
33.1
31.7
29.9
24.6
26.0
20.4
24.6
23.0
28.0
37.4
26.3
27.8
29.7
36.6
44.4
49.2
61.5
68.8
65.7
70.4
68.5
66.6
54.5
14.5
13.4
12.6
8.8
5.9
7.0
6.4
5.5
10.1
6.6
3.9
7.7
14.5
16.8
16.7
15.8
11.9
16.7
12.8
21.1
20.7
26.0
29.9
16.3
Note. Percentages are those of all US births; they may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Source. Percentages are based on an analysis of birth certificate data from the 1980 National
Natality Survey.8
7-9 Month
E 5.6Month
1-2Month
S
n
Index
1.2
Monthtwndkf
Summary
El Adequate Plus
Inadequate
Discussion
The assessment of the adequacy of
prenatal care utilization is heavily shaped
by the way in which utilization is measured. One of the major strategic and
programmatic thrusts to reduce infant
mortality in this era is to increase early
initiation of prenatal care. Healthy People
Kotelchuck
Kessner
Index
Inadequate
Intermediate
Adequate
% of total births
0.0
10.1
12.1
22.2
0.0
5.0
38.3
43.4
0.0
2.4
15.4
17.7
7.7
26.3
65.9
100.0
Note. Percentages are those of all US births; they may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Source. Percentages are based on an analysis of birth certificate data from the 1980 National
Natality Survey.8
Conwlusions
The proposed APNCU Index, with
its two components, provides a more
accurate and comprehensive set of measures of prenatal care utilization than the
widely used Kessner Index. The accurate
measurement of prenatal care utilization
is a critical step in the development of
public health programs to improve prenatal care services and ultimately to improve
birth outcomes. O
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this paper was presented
at the 115th Annual Meeting of the American
Public Health Association, New Orleans, La,
October 18-21, 1987.
The author wishes to thank Paul Wise,
Chris Costello, Diane Ramsey, and the many
users of early versions of the APNCU Index
who made suggestions to improve its versatility
and accuracy.
References
1. Kessner DM, Singer J, Kalk CE, Schlesinger ER. Infant Death: An Analysis by
Matemal Risk and Health Care. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences; 1973:chap 2.
2. Forrest JD, Singh S. Timing of prenatal
care in the United States: how accurate are
our measurements? Health Serv Res. 1987;
22:235-253.
3. Liberatos P, Kiely JL. Selected issues in the
evaluation of prenatal care. In: Kiely M,
ed. Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1991:
79-98.
4. Gortmaker SL. The effects of prenatal care
upon the health of the newborn. Am J
Public Health. 1979;69:653-660.
5. Quick JD, Greenlick MR, Roghmann KJ.
Prenatal care and pregnancy outcome in an
HMO and general population: a multivariate cohort analysis. Am J Public Health.
1981;71:381-390.
6. Showstack JA, Budetti PP, Minkler D.
Factors associated with birthweight: an
exploration of the roles of prenatal care
and length of gestation.Am JPublic Health.
1984;74:1003-1008.
7. Murray JL, Bemfield M. The differential
effect of prenatal care on the incidence of
low birthweight among whites and blacks in
a prepaid health care plan. N Engl J Med.
1988;319:1385-1391.
8. Placek PJ. The 1980 National Natality and
Fetal Mortality Surveys. Public Health Rep.
1984;99:111-116.
9. Keppel KG, Heuser RL, Placek PJ. Methods and response characteristics, 1980
National Natality and Fetal Mortality
Surveys. Vital Health Stat [2]. 1986; no. 100.
DHHS publication PHS 86-1374.
10. Manual of Standards in Obstetric-Gynecologic Practice. 2nd ed. Chicago, Ill: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1965.
11. Alexander GR, Tompkins ME, Petersen
DJ, Weiss J. Sources of bias in prenatal
care utilization indices: implications for
evaluating the Medicaid expansion. Am J
Public Health. 1991;81:1013-1016.
12. Standards for Obstetric-Gynecologic Services. 6th ed. Washington, DC: American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1985.
13. Kotelchuck M. The adequacy of prenatal
care utilization index: its US distribution
and association with low birthweight. Am J
Public Health. 1994;84:1486-1489.
14. Healthy People2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives.
Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and
Human Services; 1991. DHHS publication
PHS 91-50212.
15. Hogue CJ, Buehler JW, Strauss LT, Smith
Kotelchuck
1987;3:243-253.
24. Fingerhut A, Kleinman JC. Comparability
of reporting between the birth certificate
and the 1980 National Natality Survey.
Vital Health Stat [2]. 1985; no. 99. DHHS
publication PHS 86-1373.
Infuat Moraty
....Alth
ug su de inan death.....s..n