RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Antenatal care policy in high-income countries with a universal health system: a scoping review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.09.03.21263024
DO 10.1101/2021.09.03.21263024
A1 Andreia Soares Goncalves
A1 Isabel Maria Ferreira
A1 Márcia Pestana-Santos
A1 Christine McCourt
A1 Ana Paula Prata
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/10/2021.09.03.21263024.abstract
AB The availability, effectiveness, and access to antenatal care are directly linked with good maternal and neonatal outcomes, making antenatal care an important determinant in health. But to be effective, care must always be appropriate, not excessive, not insufficient. Perinatal outcomes vary within and between countries, raising questions about practices, the use of best evidence in clinical decisions and the existence of clear and updated guidance.Through a scoping review methodology, this study aimed to map the available antenatal care policies for low-risk pregnant women in high-income countries with a universal health system founded on the Beveridge Model.Following searches on the main databases and grey literature, the authors identified and analysed ten antenatal care policies: Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Some policies were over 10 years old, some recommendations did not present a rationale or context, others were outdated, or were simply different approaches in the absence of strong evidence. Whilst some recommendations were ubiquitous, others differed either in the recommendation provided, the timing, or the frequency. Similarly, we found wide variation in the methods/strategy used to support the recommendations provided. These results confirms that best evidence is not always assimilated into policies and clinical guidance. Further research crossing these differences with perinatal outcomes and evaluation of cost could be valuable to optimise guidance on antenatal care. Similarly, some aspects of care need further rigorous studies to obtain evidence of higher quality to inform recommendations.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/h7um6 Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology [grant number SFRH/BD/136129/2018] and the European Social Fund+ (European Union).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This review is a secondary analysis of publicly accessible documents and therefore exempt from ethical approval.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data referred to in the manuscript is of public access.