Feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of group antenatal care in Senegalese health posts: a pilot implementation trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all pregnant women in Senegal receive some antenatal care (ANC), yet only around half receive four or more visits and provision of education and counselling during ANC is often inadequate and, in some cases, non-existent. This results in missed opportunities to provide support and to counsel women regarding appropriate care-seeking practices and health behaviours during pregnancy and across the continuum of care. This pilot effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial explored whether group ANC (G-ANC), a model that integrates standard individual pregnancy care with facilitated participatory group education activities and peer support, could potentially address some of these challenges. The G-ANC model adapted for Senegal builds on local healthcare delivery systems and aligns with World Health Organization recommendations for a shift towards women-centred models of maternity services. It was implemented at the health post level, and a total of 330 pregnant women participated in the study, of whom 85% were followed up at 6-10 weeks post-delivery. We assessed implementation outcomes (e.g. acceptability, cost) to establish the feasibility of the model in Senegal and explored effectiveness outcomes related to maternal and infant health for the planning of a large-scale trial. Results indicate that women and ANC providers were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the G-ANC model, and exploratory analyses suggested improvements in exclusive breastfeeding, intention to use family planning, birth preparations and knowledge around maternal and newborn danger signs. This article provides timely and relevant evidence on the feasibility of G-ANC as an alternative model of care during pregnancy and a solid basis for recommending the conduct of a large-scale implementation study of G-ANC in Senegal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".