MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2761846137 · doi:10.3310/phr05060

Evaluation of Health in Pregnancy grants in Scotland: a natural experiment using routine data

2017· article· en· W2761846137 sur OpenAlexaff
Alastair H. Leyland, Samiratou Ouédraogo, Julian Nam, Lyndal Bond, Andrew Briggs, Ron Gray, Rachael Wood, Ruth Dundas

Notice bibliographique

RevuePublic Health Research · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBirth, Development, and Health
Établissements canadiensEmmanuel Bible CollegeUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesPublic Health Research ProgrammeMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of SouthamptonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchScottish GovernmentNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
Mots-clésMedicinePregnancyPopulationInterrupted Time Series AnalysisFamily medicinePsychological interventionDemographyPediatricsNursingEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Pregnancy and the period around birth are critical for the development and improvement of population health as well as the health of mothers and babies, with outcomes such as birthweight influencing adult health. Objectives We evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Health in Pregnancy (HiP) grants in Scotland, looking for differential outcomes when the scheme was in place, as well as before its implementation and after its withdrawal. Design The HiP grants were evaluated as a natural experiment using interrupted time series analysis. We had comparison groups of women who delivered before the grants were introduced and after the grants were withdrawn. Setting Scotland, UK. Participants A total of 525,400 singleton births delivered between 24 and 44 weeks in hospitals across Scotland between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2014. Intervention The HiP grant was a universal, unconditional cash transfer of £190 for women in Great Britain and Northern Ireland reaching 25 weeks of pregnancy if they had sought health advice from a doctor or midwife. The grant was introduced for women with a due date on or after 6 April 2009 and subsequently withdrawn for women reaching the 25th week of pregnancy on or after 1 January 2011. The programme was paid for by Her Majesty’s Treasury. Main outcome measures Our primary outcome measure was birthweight. Secondary outcome measures included maternal behaviour, measures of size, measures of stage and birth outcomes. Data sources The data came from the Scottish maternity and neonatal database held by the Information and Services Division at the NHS National Services Scotland. Results There was no statistically significant effect on birthweight, with births during the intervention period being, on average, 2.3 g [95% confidence interval (CI) –1.9 to 6.6 g] lighter than would have been expected had the pre-intervention trend continued. Mean gestational age at booking (i.e. the first antenatal appointment with a health-care professional) decreased by 0.35 weeks (95% CI 0.29 to 0.41 weeks) and the odds of booking before 25 weeks increased by 10% [odds ratio (OR) 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18] during the intervention but decreased again post intervention (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00). The odds of neonatal death increased by 84% (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.78) and the odds of having an emergency caesarean section increased by 7% (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.10) during the intervention period. Conclusions The decrease in the odds of booking before 25 weeks following withdrawal of the intervention makes it likely that the HiP grants influenced maternal health-care-seeking behaviour. It is unclear why neonatal mortality and emergency caesarean section rates increased, but plausible explanations include the effects of the swine flu outbreak in 2009 and the global financial crisis. The study is limited by its non-randomised design. Future research could assess an eligibility threshold for payment earlier than the 25th week of pregnancy. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme. The Social and Public Health Sciences Unit is core funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13) and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,062
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,625
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,982

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0620,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,774
Tête enseignante GPT0,620
Écart entre enseignants0,154 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations16
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePublic Health ResearchMême sujetBirth, Development, and HealthTravaux en français237 207