Abstract
Objectives: Prenatal care is an established mechanism for identifying and managing risk factors impacting pregnancy outcomes. Despite aggressive efforts in the United States (US) to assure that all women begin care in the first trimester, every year about 70,000 women in the US receive no care prior to delivery. We hypothesized that US women receiving no prenatal care comprise clusters (subgroups) with distinctive behavioral, socio-demographic, and medical risks and that birth outcomes differ among the clusters. Methods: White, Black, and Hispanic women (n = 126,220) receiving no prenatal care and delivering a live, singleton infant were identified from linked birth and death certificates for years 1995 through 1997. Cluster analysis was used to group women with similar characteristics, and cluster assignment was evaluated using discriminant analysis. Birth outcomes for any care and no-care women were then examined using logistic regression. Results: Six replicable clusters of women with no care were identified. Birth outcomes varied significantly among clusters and were two to four times worse for no-care clusters compared to outcomes for women receiving any care. Conclusions: Cluster analysis is an effective alternative for grouping individuals for use in public health education, intervention, and outreach programming. Women receiving no prenatal care were characteristically different from women receiving any care in this study, but they did not represent a homogenous group. Findings suggest that interventions should target reducing the proportion of women receiving no care and should be tailored to specific no-care clusters.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
REFERENCES
Elam-Evans L, Adams M, Gargiullo P, Kiely J, Marks J. Trends in the percentage of women who received no prenatal care in the United States, 1980–1992: Contributions of the demographic and risk effects. Obstetr Gynecol 1996;87:575–80.
Kessner DM, Singer J, Kalk CW, Schlesinger ER. Infant Death: An Analysis by Maternal Risk and Health Care. In: Contrasts in health status, Vol I. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, 1973.
Elam-Evans L, Adams M, Gargiullo P, Kiely J. Heterogeneity between women who received prenatal care in the third trimester and those who received no prenatal care. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1995;50:175–7.
Alexander G, Kotelchuck M. Quantifying the adequacy of prenatal care: A comparison of indices. Public Health Rep 1996;111:408–18.
Alexander G, Cornely D. Prenatal care utilization: Its measurement and relationship to pregnancy outcome. Am J Prevent Med 1987;3:243–53.
Petersen DJ, Alexander GR, D’Ascoli P, Oswald J. Prenatal care utilization in Minnesota: Patterns of concern and areas for improvement. Minn Med 1994;77:41–5.
Showstack J, Budett, P, Minkler D. Factors associated with birth weight: An exploration of the roles of prenatal care and length of gestation. Am J Public Health 1984;74:1003–8.
Kogan MD, Alexander GR, Mor JM, Kieffer EC. Ethnic-specific predictors of prenatal care utilization in Hawaii. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1998;12(2):152–62.
Alexander G, Korenbrot C. The role of prenatal care in preventing low birth weight. Future Children. 1995;5:103–20.
Institute of Medicine Committee to Study Outreach of Prenatal Care, Brown S, Editor. Prenatal Care: Reaching Mothers, Reaching Infants. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1988.
Joyce K, Diffenbacher G, Greene J, Sorokin Y. Internal and external barriers to obtaining prenatal care. Soc. Work Health care 1983;9:89–96.
Cooney JP. What determines the start of prenatal care? Prenatal care, insurance and education. Med Care 1985;23:986–97.
National Center for Health Statistics. 1995, 1996, 1997 Birth Cohort Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Sets, NCHS CD-ROM Series 20, Numbers 12a, 14a, 15a, ASCII Version, US Dept Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs.
SAS Users Guide. Version 6, Vol. 1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC: 1989.
SAS OnlineDoc, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1999. Retrieved on August 6, 2004 from http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml/.
Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman R, Mor JM, Kogan MD. A US national reference for fetal growth. Obstetr Gynecol 1996;87(2):163–8.
State-specific trends in US live births to women born outside the 50 states and the District of Columbia—United States, 1990 and 2000. MMWR Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep 2002;51:1091–5.
MacDorman M, Minino A, Strobino D, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics–2001. Pediatrics 2002;110:1037–52.
Alan Guttmacher Institute. Teen sex and pregnancy. 1999. Retrieved July 17, 2002, from http://www.agi_usa.org/pubs/fb_teen_sex.html.
Rosenberg K, Desai R, Kan J. Why do foreign-born blacks have lower infant mortality than native-born blacks? New directions in African American infant mortality research. J Natl Med Assoc 2002;94:770–8.
Cervantes A, Keith L, Wyshak G. Adverse birth outcomes among native-born and immigrant women: replicating national evidence regarding Mexicans at the local level. Matern Child Health J 1999;3(2):99–109.
Palloni A, Morenoff J. Interpreting the paradoxical in the Hispanic paradox: demographic and epidemiologic approaches. Ann. NY Acad Sci 2001;954:140–74.
Buekens P, Notzon F, Kotelchuck M, Wilcox A. Why do Mexican Americans give birth to few low-birth weight infants? Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:347–51.
Franzini L, Ribble J, Keddie A. Understanding the Hispanic paradox. Ethnicity Dis 2001;14:496–518.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Eligibility limitations of immigrants for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Retrieved on February 25, 2003 from http://cms.hhs.gov/about/.
Clustan. Clustering applications. Retrieved on July 17, 2002, from http://www.clustan.com/clustering_applications.html.
Hudson S, Ritchie B. Understanding the domestic market using cluster analysis: A case study of the marketing efforts of Travel Alberta. J Vacation Market 2002;8:263–76.
Mochis G, Bellenger D, Curasi C. Financial service preferences and patronage motives of older consumers. J Financ Serv Market 2003;7:331–40.
Piper J, Mitchell E, Snowden M, Hall C, Adams M, Taylor P. Validation of the 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:758–68.
Parrish K, Hold V, Connell F, Williams B, LoGerfo P. Variations in the accuracy of obstetric procedures and diagnoses on birth records in Washington State, 1989. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:119–27.
Watkins M, Edmonds L, McClearn A, Mullins L, Mulinare J, Khoury M. The surveillance of birth defects: The usefulness of the revised US standard birth certificate. Am J Public Health 1996; 86:731–4.
Alexander G, Petersen D. Threats to accurate interpretation of secondary data. In: Kotch J (editor), Maternal and child health: Programs, problems, and policy in public health. Gaithersburg, MD, Aspen, 1997;395–403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, C.R., Alexander, G.R. & Hepworth, J.T. Clustering of U.S. Women Receiving No Prenatal Care: Differences in Pregnancy Outcomes and Implications for Targeting Interventions. Matern Child Health J 9, 125–133 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-005-4869-3
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-005-4869-3