The Benefits of Introducing a Pregnancy Support Tool for Low-Income Women During Routine Obstetrics Care

Abstract

The objective of the CONTINUE (conversations in routine OB care) pilot study was to gather preliminary data on the benefits of integrating a well-designed pregnancy support tool (“CONTINUE Tool”) in low-income prenatal care. A total of 184 tools were distributed by 21 OB providers during the study implementation period. Follow-up data were collected from 71 (38.5%) prenatal patients across three community-based midwestern OB clinics serving a diverse prenatal patient population. Early-gestation prenatal patients received the strategically designed CONTINUE Tool during routine prenatal care and later completed a semi-structured interview or electronic survey to report pre-determined individual benefit items experienced due to tool usage. Factor analysis used individual benefit items to identify factors representing common underlying benefits (“factor benefits”). Logistic regression analyses were performed to describe the relative odds of participants with low income (public insurance) experiencing individual and factor benefits of tool use compared to participants of higher income (private insurance). Chi square tests (or Fisher’s exact tests) were performed to generate P values reflecting statistically significant differences by income group. More low-income prenatal participants reported experiencing individual benefits as compared to higher-income participants. Among factor benefits, low-income participants were statistically more likely to report experiencing a time-related logistics benefit (OR = 4.00; 95% CI 1.02-15.73; P = .045). Low-income participants reported experiencing an overall logistics factor benefit (OR = 4.29; 95% CI 0.47-38.75), including a cost-related logistics benefit (OR = 3.08; CI 0.59-16.00), as well as an understanding benefit (OR = 1.90; 95% CI 0.72-5.04) and a self-efficacy benefit (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.44-3.87). While this study is limited by sample size due to being a pilot study, the findings suggest there may be tangible benefits to introducing the CONTINUE Tool among low-income prenatal patients. Given the staggering inequity in OB care and subsequent health outcomes, any preliminary findings on ways to help combat this are necessary and should lay the groundwork for subsequent randomized trials. Our preliminary findings show that supplementing routine OB care with the CONTINUE Tool can confer benefits to both providers and patients, but particularly for low-income prenatal patients who tend to have more structural barriers to adequate care in the first place.

Keywords

community health obstetrics patient-centeredness underserved communities mixed methods

Introduction

There is great need for alternative and/or supplemental approaches to mitigating barriers to routine prenatal care for low-income women. Research has demonstrated that low-income women are more likely to face a myriad of internal and external barriers to adequate prenatal care,^1-5 including insufficient or no insurance,^6,7 increased mental health issues,⁸ perceptions of long wait times,⁹ fear of procedures and examinations,^2,10 and poorer treatment.^11,12 Given that adequate prenatal care is considered essential for ensuring healthy pregnancy outcomes, it follows that critical maternal and infant health indicators are especially poor among low-income groups in the U.S.^13-16

The use of support tools to supplement prenatal care has shown promising benefits.¹⁷ A recent systematic review of tools developed to support prenatal women’s health-related decisions indicated that, relative to women who did not use a tool, women who used a tool reported higher knowledge scores,^18-25 more awareness of care option risks and benefits,^18-21,24,26 decreased decisional conflict,¹⁷ safer lifestyle choices,^27,28 closer health monitoring,^29,30 increased specialist referrals,³¹ more individualized prenatal care,³¹ lower anxiety,³² higher confidence,³² and more care satisfaction.³³ These studies reveal the potential of a patient-centered prenatal support tool to promote communication, as prenatal patients who used the tool discussed their concerns with providers to a greater extent.^{24,29,31,34,35} Given poorer maternal and child outcomes among low-income groups,^13-15 exploring benefits of a pregnancy support tool by income is critical. However, little research to date has demonstrated the effectiveness of a pregnancy support tool on prenatal care plan adherence, nor has the effect of pregnancy support tools on the interpersonal aspects of care (e.g., trust, partnership, understanding, communication) been demonstrated in lower-income prenatal patients.¹⁷

The Conversations in Routine Obstetrics (OB) Care (“CONTINUE”) pilot study integrated a strategically and iteratively designed, paper-based pregnancy support tool into routine OB care with prenatal patients and measured tool-derived benefits of tool use. The purpose of the CONTINUE Tool was to act as a tangible representation of the prenatal care plan, to make explicit the prenatal care plan trajectory and facilitate conversation that would enhance patient understanding of the care plan. A 2017 trial found that prenatal patients who were randomized to use a paper-based tool were more engaged and collaborative in their care relative to those assigned to the mobile tool group, which was an essential element for the CONTINUE pilot.⁹ The overall objective of the CONTINUE pilot study was to (1) determine the feasibility of incorporating the CONTINUE Tool into routine OB care and (2) gather preliminary data on tool use-derived benefits developed by prenatal patients and other key stakeholders.

CONTINUE Tool

The CONTINUE Tool was iteratively co-designed with low-income prenatal patients, physicians, and nurses in a prior study (COST)³⁶ and then integrated into routine care during a subsequent pilot study (CONTINUE), reflected in this manuscript, to determine feasibility and assess tool use-derived benefits (Figure 1). The CONTINUE Tool is a trifold, paper-based tool intended to be completed by providers to reflect a patient’s personalized prenatal care plan, as decided between the patient and provider at the onset of prenatal care (Figure 2). Further, the tangible tool was created to act as a shared informational tool to bridge and mediate communication surrounding the prenatal care plan between stakeholders with different knowledge levels and goals, like providers, clinic staff, and patients. Given recommended prenatal care plans are visit-intensive, the idea of the tool is that, by making explicit the care plan trajectory, prenatal patients would have time to identify needed resources and activate the supports they may need to actively participate in their care. Through semi-structured interviews conducted in the COST study, low-income patients, OB clinic staff, and providers identified 18 potential benefits they believed the CONTINUE Tool could offer prenatal patients. These 18 tool use-derived benefits were derived from the COST study and subsequently validated in CONTINUE study. The 18 individual benefits and the four factor benefits identified through a factor analysis are the focus of this paper. The cost-specific benefits³⁷ implementation of the study³⁸ and can be found in other publications.

Figure 1.

CONTINUE study overview.

Figure 2.

CONTINUE tool.

Methods

In this prospective observational pilot study, the CONTINUE Tool was integrated into three midwestern community-based OB clinics throughout Chicago, IL to determine feasibility of tool implementation and to measure the 18 potential tool use-derived benefits. The three involved clinics represented a diversity of patients and typical clinical practice structures. The three clinics were served by four different OB provider types (OB attendings, OB residents, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Nurses), each implementing the CONTINUE Tool as part of their routine OB care. Clinic 1 primarily serves prenatal patients who are privately insured, predominantly White, high and low risk, with four OB attendings on staff. Clinic 2 primarily serves prenatal patients who are publicly insured (insured by Medicaid, at or below 213% of the federal poverty line for a pregnant person),³⁹ predominantly Hispanic/Latino/Spanish, high and low risk with 12 OB residents on rotation and 3 nurse providers on staff. Clinic 3 primarily serves prenatal patients who are privately insured, predominantly White, low risk, with 2 certified Nurse-Midwives (“midwife”) providers on staff. The CONTINUE Tool was implemented between September 2020 and July 2021, with providers primarily distributing tools to prenatal patients early in their prenatal care (8-12 weeks of gestation). The CONTINUE Tool was available in English or Spanish, and version was chosen by the patient at the time of introduction by the provider. Study approval was granted by the health system’s institution review board (IRB #20-264E).

Participants

At the end of CONTINUE Tool implementation, prenatal patients who received the CONTINUE Tool were recruited to participate in either an in-person or virtual semi-structured interview or to remotely complete an electronic survey to provide feedback on their experiences with the CONTINUE Tool. Prenatal patient participants were at least 18 years old, at least 27 weeks pregnant, and had received the tool at least 8 weeks prior. Due to this study being an early implementation pilot, and given pandemic-related circumstances, participants self-selected their participation method, as interview (in-person or virtual) or electronic survey, as well as their preferred language (English or Spanish). Surveys were provided and interviews were conducted in the preferred language.

Demographic and Health-Related Items

Demographic variables were collected on all prenatal patients, including: Age (categorized) as 18-25, 26-35, or 36-45; Race as White, Black, Asian, AI/AN, or other; Race (binary) as White or Non-White; Ethnicity as Hispanic/Latino/Spanish or Non-Hispanic/Latino/Spanish; Insurance status as public or private; Language as English or Spanish (as self-selected by patient); Currently working as yes or no; and Current partner as yes or no. Pregnancy-specific variables were also collected, including: Provider type as midwife, nurse, OB resident, or OB attending; Parity as first or subsequent; Risk as high, low, or unknown (as self-reported by patient); and Clinic as 1, 2, or 3. It is important to note that insurance status is being used as a proxy for income in this study. Given research indicating low-income women are more likely to suffer due to burdensome care plans, this study aimed to highlight potential differences in benefits by income status; however, to mitigate potential feelings of being targeted based on perceived income level, patient income was not asked in data collection. Therefore, patients will be referred to by insurance status (public vs private) throughout this paper, with publicly insured patient participants representing low-income and privately insured patient participants representing higher income.

Tool-Use Benefit Items and Factors

Prenatal patient participants completed a 60-minute semi-structured interview or 20-minute electronic survey to capture patients’ self-report of whether they had experienced the 18 previously identified benefits of CONTINUE Tool use.³⁶ Interview participants reviewed the benefit items during a card sort activity, which each potential benefit on a unique card, and asked to sort the benefits into three categories: benefits experienced due to the CONTINUE Tool; benefits neither experienced nor not experienced (i.e. neutral); or benefits not experienced due to the CONTINUE Tool. Survey participants reviewed the benefit items in the electronic survey, with each potential benefit as a unique survey question, and asked to rate their experiences of the benefits similarly as interview participants (i.e., as experienced, neutral or not experienced benefits). Next, participant responses were collapsed into two categories—participants who self-reported experiencing all items comprising a factor were scored as having experienced that factor benefit (Yes) and participants who self-reported any of the individual benefits comprising a factor as neutral or not experienced were scored as having not experienced the factor benefit (No). Then, an exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify underlying factors structure of the 18 benefit items, as determined by interrelationships of the items (Figure 3). Participant responses on the collapsed ratings were used as observed data to determine factor benefits. Through the factor analysis, three factors—logistics (Factor 1), efficacy (Factor 2), and patient understanding (Factor 3)—and two logistics sub-factors—cost and time—were identified. Of the 18 benefit items, 8 loaded as logistics (with 4 each loading as cost-related and time-related); 5 loaded as efficacy; and 5 loaded as understanding. Specifically, the logistics factor benefit included cost-related factor benefit items of “make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through my pregnancy,” “navigate insurance more effectively,” “see the ‘Big Picture’ and link it to the family budget,” and “feel my financial situation was being considered” and time-related factor benefit items of “attending more appointments,” “managing other life responsibilities,” “showing up on time to appointments,” and “feeling their time related to prenatal care was respected.” Efficacy factor benefit items included feeling more in control of their pregnancy, feeling confident she was “doing things right,” increased trust in the care team, asking questions she wouldn’t have thought to ask and being a stronger partner in her care. Understanding factor benefit items included “understanding what was coming next in their pregnancy care,” “understanding how appointments differed,” “planning ahead and feeling less stressed,” “knowing how to plan for tests,” and “explaining their care plan to others (family, employers, other doctors).” The purpose of the factor analysis was to identify a smaller, more comprehensive set of “factor benefits” that were experienced by prenatal participants who received the tool.⁴⁰

Figure 3.

Exploratory factor analysis final model path diagram.

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Counts and percentages are used to describe (1) participants demographics and pregnancy-specific variable distributions overall and by insurance status in Table 1, (2) the proportion of participants who experienced individual benefits by insurance status in Table 2, and (3) the proportion of participants who experienced factor benefits by insurance status in Table 3. Logistic regression analyses were performed to generate odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) reflecting the relative odds of publicly insured (low-income) participants, as compared to privately insured (higher income) participants, experiencing an individual benefit and factor benefit in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Due to small sample issues, P values were generated from Chi square tests, or Fisher’s Exact Tests for cell counts <5, to reflect statistically significant differences in demographic and pregnancy-specific variables by insurance status in Table 1 and statistically significant differences in experiencing individual and factor benefits by insurance status in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Alpha of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.

Table 1.

Demographics of Patient Sample, Overall (N = 71) and by Insurance Status.

Variables	Overall (N = 71) (%)	Insurance		P value⁺
Variables	Overall (N = 71) (%)	Public (N = 40) (%)	Private (N = 31) (%)	P value⁺
Data type
Interview	37 (52.11)	19 (51.35)	18 (48.65)	.377
Survey	34 (47.89)	21 (61.76)	13 (38.24)	.377
Language
English	68 (95.77)	37 (54.41)	31 (45.59)	.252^{^}
Spanish	3 (4.23)	3 (100.00)	0 (0.00)	.252^{^}
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native	1 (1.43)	1 (100.00)	0 (0.00)	.334^{^}
Asian	4 (5.71)	1 (25.00)	3 (75.00)
Black	9 (12.86)	7 (77.78)	2 (22.22)
None of the above	6 (8.57)	4 (66.67)	2 (33.33)
White	50 (71.43)	26 (52.00)	24 (48.00)
Race (Binary)
Non-White	20 (28.57)	13 (65.00)	7 (35.00)	.427^{^}
White	50 (71.43)	26 (52.00)	24 (48.00)	.427^{^}
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino/Spanish	40 (56.34)	30 (75.00)	10 (25.00)	.001*
Non-Hispanic/Latino/Spanish	31 (43.66)	10 (32.36)	21 (67.74)	.001*
Clinic
Clinic 1	19 (26.76)	1 (5.26)	18 (94.74)	<.001^{^}*
Clinic 2	40 (56.34)	36 (90.00)	4 (10.00)
Clinic 3	12 (16.90)	3 (25.00)	9 (75.00)
Provider type
Midwife	12 (16.90)	3 (25.00)	9 (75.00)	<.001^{^}*
Nurse	17 (23.94)	13 (76.47)	4 (23.53)
OB attending	19 (26.76)	1 (5.26)	18 (94.74)
OB resident	23 (32.39)	23 (100.00)	0 (0.00)
Age group
18-25	12 (18.31)	12 (92.31)	1 (7.69)	.001^{^}*
26-35	41 (57.75)	24 (58.54)	17 (41.46)
36-45	17 (23.94)	4 (23.53)	13 (76.47)
Partner (N = 37)
Yes	36 (97.30)	18 (50.00)	18 (50.00)	1.000^{^}
No	1 (2.70)	1 (100.00)	0 (0.00)	1.000^{^}
Risk (N = 67)
High risk	28 (39.44)	17 (60.71)	11 (39.29)	.725
Low risk	39 (54.93)	22 (56.41)	17 (43.59)
Unknown^#	4 (5.63)	1 (25.00)	3 (75.00)
Parity (N = 70)
First	30 (42.25)	16 (53.33)	14 (46.67)	.728
Subsequent	40 (56.34)	23 (57.50)	17 (42.50)	.728
Work (N = 36)
Yes	24 (66.67)	8 (33.33)	16 (66.67)	.001^{^}*
No	12 (33.33)	11 (91.67)	1 (8.33)	.001^{^}*

Generated from Chi square tests or ^{^}Fisher’s Exact Test if cell counts <5.

Statistically significant at P < .05.

Variable level removed for P-value calculation.

Table 2.

Individual Benefits of the CONTINUE Tool Experienced by Insurance Status, Within Factors, and Sub-Factors.

The pregnancy support tool helped me. . .	Insurance		Odds ratio (OR)	P value⁺
The pregnancy support tool helped me. . .	Public (N = 40) (%)	Private (N = 31) (%)	Odds ratio (OR)	P value⁺
Factor: logistics
Sub-factor: cost
Make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through my pregnancy^Ϯ	11 (84.62)	2 (15.38)	5.50 (1.12, 27.03)	.031^{^}*
Navigate insurance more effectively^Ϯ	13 (81.25)	3 (18.75)	4.49 (1.15, 17.55)	.025^{^}*
See the “Big Picture” and link it to the family budget^Ϯ	18 (78.26)	5 (21.74)	4.25 (1.36, 13.33)	.010*
Feel my financial situation was being considered^Ϯ	14 (70.00)	6 (30.00)	2.24 (.74, 6.76)	.146
Sub-factor: Time
Show up on time.	17 (85.00)	3 (15.00)	6.90 (1.80, 26.49)	.003^{^}*
Feel my time was being respected.	26 (70.27)	11 (29.73)	3.38 (1.27, 9.01)	.014*
Attend more appointments.	19 (67.86)	9 (32.14)	2.21 (.82, 5.97)	.114
Manage my other life responsibilities^Ϯ	23 (65.71)	12 (34.29)	2.14 (.82, 5.58)	.116
Factor: efficacy
Feel confident that I was “doing things right”	30 (63.83)	17 (36.17)	2.47 (.90, 6.76)	.075
Increase my trust in the care team	24 (63.16)	14 (36.84)	1.82 (.71, 4.70)	.214
Feel more in control of my pregnancy	31 (59.62)	21 (40.38)	1.64 (.57, 4.72)	.357
Be a stronger partner in my care	23 (60.53)	15 (48.39)	1.44 (.56, 3.71)	.445
Ask questions I wouldn’t have thought to ask	22 (57.89)	16 (42.11)	1.15 (.45, 2.93)	.777
Factor: patient understanding
Know how to plan for tests	29 (61.70)	18 (38.30)	1.90 (.70, 5.15)	.202
Explain my care plan to others (family, employers, other doctors)	30 (61.22)	19 (38.78)	1.89 (.69, 5.24)	.215
Plan ahead and feel less stressed	34 (58.62)	24 (41.38)	1.65 (.49, 5.54)	.413
Understand what was coming next in my pregnancy care	36 (57.14)	27 (42.86)	1.33 (.31, 5.82)	.772^{^}
Understand how appointments differ	28 (58.33)	20 (41.67)	1.28 (.47, 3.49)	.624

Generated from Chi square tests or ^{^}Fisher’s Exact Test if cell counts <5.

Statistically significant at P < .05.

These items made up a pre-defined cost measure, explored further elsewhere.⁴¹

Table 3.

Factor Benefits of the CONTINUE Tool Experienced by Insurance Status.

Factor	Insurance		OR (95% CI)	P Value^ϯ
Factor	Public (N = 40) (%)	Private (N = 31) (%)	OR (95% CI)	P Value^ϯ
Logistics	5 (83.33)	1 (16.67)	4.29 (0.47-38.75)	0.222^{^}
Time	12 (80.00)	3 (20.00)	4.00 (1.02-15.73)	0.045 ^{^} *
Financial/costs	7 (77.78)	2 (22.22)	3.08 (0.59-16.00)	0.282^{^}
Understanding	19 (65.52)	10 (34.48)	1.90 (0.72-5.04)	0.195
Self-efficacy	11 (61.11)	7 (38.89)	1.30 (0.44-3.87)	0.637

Generated from Chi square tests or ^{^}Fisher’s Exact Test if cell counts <5.

Statistically significant at P < .05.

Results

Among the 184 prenatal patients who were given the CONTINUE Tool, 71 (38.50%) participated in the study. Thirty-seven (52.11%) completed the interview and 34 (47.89%) completed the survey. Overall, the sample was primarily prenatal women who were English-speaking (95.77%), White (71.43%), Hispanic/Latino/Spanish (56.34%), age 26-35 (57.75%), and currently working (66.67%). Regarding participants’ pregnancies, most were experiencing a low-risk pregnancy (54.93%) and a subsequent pregnancy (56.34%), received care at Clinic 2, and received the tool by an OB resident provider (32.39%).

Table 1 displays differences by insurance status, revealing that, relative to those with private insurance, participants with public insurance had significantly greater odds of being ages 18-25 (P = .006) and Hispanic/Latino/Spanish (P = .001), having received care at Clinic 2 (P < .001), having received the tool from a nurse provider (P < .001), and not currently working (P = .001).

Table 2 displays the individual benefit items that comprise each factor benefit and describes differences in experiences of individual benefits reported by patient participants. Participants with public insurance were more likely to experience every individual benefit item compared to those with private insurance. The following items were statistically significantly more likely to be experienced by those with public insurance compared to those with private insurance: show up on time (OR 6.90, CI 1.80-26.49; P = .003), make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through my pregnancy (OR 5.50, CI 1.12-27.03; P = .031), navigate insurance more effectively (OR 4.49, CI 1.15-17.55; P = .025), see the “Big Picture” and link it to the family budget (OR 4.25, CI 1.36-13.33; P = .010), and feel my time was being respected (OR 3.38, CI 1.27-9.01; P = .014).

Table 3 displays factor benefits experienced due to the use of the CONTINUE Tool by insurance status. Participants with public insurance had 1.30-4.29 times greater odds of experiencing factor benefits, as compared to those with private insurance. Of statistical significance, relative to those with private insurance, participants with public insurance had 4.00 (CI 1.02-15.73) times greater odds of experiencing the time-related logistics sub-factor benefit due to use of the CONTINUE Tool (P = .045). Of clinical but not statistical significance, despite not being statistically significant, relative to participants with private insurance, participants with public insurance had 1.30 (CI 0.44-3.87) times greater odds of experiencing an efficacy benefit, 1.90 (CI 0.72-5.04) times greater odds of experiencing an understanding benefit, 4.29 (CI 0.47-38.75) times greater odds of experiencing an overall logistics benefit, with 3.08 (CI 0.59-16.00) times greater odds of experiencing the cost-related logistics sub-factor benefit.

Discussion

The CONTINUE pilot study highlights differences in tool-use benefits by income (as defined by insurance status), with low-income prenatal participants reporting experiencing all pre-determined potential benefits to a greater extent, some significant, from use of the CONTINUE Tool relative to higher-income prenatal participants. It should be noted that, in our study, prenatal participants with public insurance were more likely to be younger, Hispanic/Latino/Spanish, not currently working, and being served in a clinic dominated by nurses and OB residents as providers. This is important to consider, given the unique set of challenges faced when navigating a burdensome care plan, but particularly among more vulnerable groups, with limited avenues for support, who experience compounded barriers to adequate care.^1,8,41 Therefore, it is possible that benefits observed in this study were the result of low-income women needing more support throughout their pregnancies, and subsequently utilizing an opportunity for that support. Or, low-income participants may have simply capitalized more on a tangible mechanism for additional support, as provided by the CONTINUE Tool.

In terms of benefit items, five of 18 emerged as statistically significant, all of which loaded as items reflecting a logistic factor benefit. Three individual items—“make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through my pregnancy,” “navigate insurance more effectively,” “see the ‘Big Picture’ and link it to the family budget”—were cost-related factor benefit items that participants reported experiencing due to the use of the tool. The cost benefits of the CONTINUE Tool are explored more in depth in a separate paper.³⁷ Also, two items—“show up on time” and “feel my time was being respected”—were time-related factor benefit items that participants reported experiencing due to use of the tool. Low-income participants reported these benefits significantly more than higher-income participants, reflecting the tool’s potential to bridge the gap in disparity in clinic processes affecting time, as provider type (and related clinic processes) were different by income. Further, it is likely that differences in these two items drove the identified difference in the time-related logistic benefit by income.

Most notably, the time-related logistics benefit emerged as statistically significant in terms of differences by income. Relative to higher-income participants, low-income participants were four times more likely to report experiencing the time-related factor benefit due to the use of the CONTINUE Tool. These benefits together reflect the CONTINUE Tool’s effectiveness as a mutual consideration asset, allowing prenatal patients to take agency over some aspects of their care, which in turn benefits the provider. These findings also reiterate the CONTINUE Tool’s usefulness as a practical tool to help manage time-specific logistics to attend needed medical appointments and to balance other calendar responsibilities and time obligations. This finding suggests the CONTINUE Tool could have further implications for prenatal care, including improved treatment adherence.

Beyond statistical significance, the clinical significance of additional benefits is worth mentioning. In particular, the factor benefit of understanding was experienced most often across all participants due to use of the tool, with 19/40 (47.50%) of low-income participants and 10/31 (32.36%) of higher income participants reporting experiencing this benefit. Efficacy was also experienced often across both income groups, with 11/40 (27.50%) of low-income participants and 7/31 (22.58%) of higher income participants reporting this benefit. The fact that these factor benefits were reported as experienced often by both groups may speak to the fact that understanding and efficacy are lacking as components of prenatal care and that there is opportunity for an additional mechanism, like the CONTINUE Tool, to fill this need.

Another manuscript documenting different benefits of the CONTINUE study concluded that, relative to low-income prenatal patients, higher income prenatal patients more often used the CONTINUE Tool to facilitate cost-of-care conversations with their clinical teams, partners, HR, and insurance companies and were more likely to welcome a pregnancy support tool in their care.³⁷ The CONTINUE study demonstrates that introducing a pregnancy support tool, like the CONTINUE Tool, in routine care can benefit all prenatal patients, albeit in different ways, but especially low-income patients who may need extra support given the documented barriers they more often experience.^1-12 Although preliminary, the findings of the CONTINUE pilot may be used to justify an experimental trial as a next step, to determine the effectiveness of a well-designed support tool in routine OB care.

Limitations

Implementation of this study occurred throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in multiple challenges to introducing the tool into standard clinical workflow during such an unstable time. This impacted our ability to recruit and interview prenatal patients, as we were restricted from being physically present in certain clinics. Feedback was collected from a small sample of prenatal patients overall and about 38% of those who received the CONTINUE Tool. Further, to accommodate comfort and availability, participants were able to self-select their participation method—in person or virtual interview or remote survey. Had we been able to utilize clinic space or be in person under safer circumstances, perhaps our study would have enrolled more individuals and produced more robust results. Finally, the CONTINUE Tool was not tested to evaluate associations between tool utilization and medical or clinical maternal or infant outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant #77290).

ORCID iD

Veronica Fitzpatrick

References

Novick

. Women’s experience of prenatal care: an integrative review. J Midwifery Women’s Heal. 2009;54(3):226-237. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.02.003

Mikhail

. Perceived impediments to prenatal care among low-income women. West J Nurs Res. 1999;21(3):335-350. doi:10.1177/019394599902100305

Sword

. Prenatal care use among women of low income: a matter of “taking care of self.” Qual Health Res. 2003;13(3): 319-332. doi:10.1177/0095399702250128

D’Angelo

Bryan

Kurz

. Women’s experiences with prenatal care: a mixed-methods study exploring the influence of the social determinants of health. J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2016;9(3):127-149.

Meyer

Hennink

Rochat

Julian

Pinto

Zertuche

, et al. Working towards safe motherhood: delays and barriers to prenatal care for women in rural and peri-urban areas of Georgia. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(7):1358-1365. doi:10.1007/s10995-016-1997-x

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. The uninsured: A primer. 2007. Accessed January 2, 2023. https://files.kff.org/attachment/primer-the-uninsured-a-primer-key-facts-about-health-insurance-and-the-uninsured-in-the-era-of-health-reform

Gennaro

. Overview of current state of research on pregnancy outcomes in minority populations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):S3-S10. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.014

Dole

Savitz

Siega-Riz

Hertz-Picciotto

McMahon

Buekens

. Psychosocial factors and preterm birth among African American and White women in central North Carolina. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(8):1358-1365. doi:10.1093/aje/kwf176

Worley

Bullock

LFC

Geden

. The incubator model: is it effective prenatal care? Clin Excell Nurse Pract. 2004;8(1): 29-34.

10.

Fuller

Gallagher

. Perceived benefits and barriers of prenatal care in low income women. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 1999;11(12):527-532. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.1999.tb01222.x

11.

Milligan

Wingrove

Richards

, et al. Perceptions about prenatal care: views of urban vulnerable groups. BMC Public Health. 2002;2:25. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-2-25

12.

Tandon

Parillo

Keefer

. Hispanic women’s perceptions of patient-centeredness during prenatal care: a mixed-method study. Birth. 2005;32:312-317. doi:10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00389.x

13.

Osterman

Martin

. Timing and adequacy of prenatal care in the United States, 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018; 67(3):1-14. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_03.pdf

14.

MacDornan

Mathews

. Recent trends in infant mortality in the U.S. NCHS Data Brief No. 9. National Center for Health Statistics; 2008. Accessed January 2, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

15.

Martin

Hamilton

Ventura

Menaker

Kirmeyer

Munson

. Births: final data for 2005. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2007;56(6):1-103. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf

16.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy People 2010. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2005. Maternal, infant and child health.

17.

Ngo

Truong

MBT

Nordeng

. Use of decision support tools to empower pregnant women: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e19436. doi:10.2196/19436

18.

Beulen

van den Berg

Faas

, et al. The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(10):1409-1416. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2016.39

19.

Kuppermann

Pena

Bishop

, et al. Effect of enhanced information, values, and clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(12):1210-1217. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.11479

20.

Kuppermann

Norton

Gates

, et al. Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):53-63. doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31818e7ec4

21.

Nagle

Gunn

Bell

, et al. Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women’s informed decision making: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BJOG: Int J O &G. 2008;115(3):339-347. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01576.x

22.

Rothwell

Johnson

Wong

, et al. The use of a game-based decision aid to educate pregnant women about prenatal screening: a randomized controlled study. Amer J Perinatol. 2018;36(3):322-328. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1667371

23.

Yee

Wolf

Mullen

, et al. A randomized trial of a prenatal genetic testing interactive computerized information aid. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(6):552-557. doi:10.1002/pd.4347

24.

Björklund

Marsk

Levin

Öhman

. Audiovisual information affects informed choice and experience of information in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(3):390-395. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.004

25.

Parsa

Khajouei

Baneshi

Aali

. Improving the knowledge of pregnant women using a pre-eclampsia app: a controlled before and after study. Int J Med Inform. 2019;125: 86-90. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.001

26.

Carlson

Harris

Hardisty

, et al. Use of a novel computerized decision aid for aneuploidy screening: a randomized controlled trial. Genet Med. 2018;21(4):923-929. doi:10.1038/s41436-018-0283-2

27.

van der Wulp

Hoving

Eijmael

Candel

van Dalen

De Vries

. Reducing alcohol use during pregnancy via health counseling by midwives and internet-based computer-tailored feedback: a cluster randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e274. doi:10.2196/jmir.3493

28.

Evans

Wallace

Snider

. Pilot evaluation of the text4baby mobile health program. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1):1031.doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1031

29.

Ledford

CJW

Womack

Rider

, et al. Unexpected effects of a system-distributed mobile application in maternity care: a randomized controlled trial. Health Educ Behav. 2017;45(3):323-330. doi:10.1177/1090198117732110

30.

Zairina

Abramson

McDonald

, et al. Telehealth to improve asthma control in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Respirology. 2016;21(5):867-874. doi:10.1111/resp.12773

31.

Hantsoo

Criniti

Khan

, et al. A mobile application for monitoring and management of depressed mood in a vulnerable pregnant population. Psychiatr Serv. 2018;69(1):104-107. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201600582

32.

Jareethum

Vitaya

Tienthai

Viboonchart

Prakong

Chatchainoppakhun

. Satisfaction of healthy pregnant women receiving short message service via mobile phone for prenatal support: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91(4):458-463.

33.

Dye

Wojtowycz

. Organisational variation, satisfaction, and women’s time investment in prenatal care. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1999;13:158-169. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3016.1999.00170.x

34.

Hirst

Mackillop

Loerup

, et al. Acceptability and user satisfaction of a smartphone-based, interactive blood glucose management system in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;9(1):111-115. doi:10.1177/1932296814556506

35.

McDonald

Park

Pullenayegum

, et al. Knowledge translation tool to improve pregnant women’s awareness of gestational weight gain goals and risks of gaining outside recommendations: a non-randomized intervention study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):105. doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0534-z

36.

Erwin

Fitzpatrick

Norell

Gilliam

. Development of a framework and tool to facilitate cost-of-care conversations with patients during prenatal care. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170: S62-S69. doi:10.7326/M18-2207

37.

Fitzpatrick

Erwin

Rivelli

, et al. The potential impact of introducing a cost tool to facilitate cost-of-care conversations in routine OB care: lessons from the CONTINUE pilot study. PEC Innovation. 2023;17:100136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100136.

38.

Erwin

Fitzpatrick

Rivelli

, et al. Using human centered design and implementation science methodologies to maximize uptake of a pregnancy support tool in routine prenatal care: lessons from the CONTINUE pilot study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. In Review.

39.

Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Medical Programs; Family Health Plans: Moms and Babies. 2023. Accessed February 3, 2023. https://www2.illinois.gov/hfs/MedicalClients/Pages/medicalprograms.aspx

40.

Rivelli

Fitzpatrick

Shields

Erwin

. An exploratory factor analysis approach to identifying benefits of a mixed-methods pilot study in routine OB care. BMC Health Serv Res. Published online March 3, 2023. doi:10.1101/2023.03.02.23286699

41.

Zayas

Cunningham

McKee

Jankowski

. Depression and negative life events among pregnancy African American and Hispanic women. Women’s Health Issues. 2002;12(1):16-22. doi:10.1016/s1049-3867(01)00138-4