Adequacy of Prenatal Care in Northeast Brazil: Pilot Data Comparing Attainment of Standard Care Criteria for First-Time Adolescent and Adult Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raísa Barbosa de Andrade,1 Catherine M Pirkle,2 Tetine Sentell,2 Diego Bassani,3 Marlos Rodrigues Domingues,4 Saionara MA Câmara1,5 1Postgraduate Program in Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil; 2Office of Public Health Studies, University of Hawaii at MÄnoa, Honolulu, HI, USA; 3Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 4Postgraduate Programme in Physical Education, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil; 5Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, BrazilCorrespondence: Saionara MA CâmaraFaculdade de Ciências da Saúde do Trairi, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Rua Teodorico Bezerra, s/n, Centro, Santa Cruz, RN, BrazilTel +55 84 99480-6888Email saionaraaires@gmail.comBackground: Adolescent pregnancy is a public health concern worldwide, particularly in low-income settings. Adolescent mothers face higher risks during pregnancy and delivery compared to adult mothers and yet, may also experience worse quality of obstetrical care. This study evaluates adherence to meeting Brazilian recommendations for prenatal care by comparing first-time adolescent versus adult mothers in a rural, low-income setting.Methods: Using data from the Adolescence and Motherhood Research (AMOR) project, we evaluated adherence to national recommendations as documented in the prenatal cards of 39 adolescents (13– 18 years) and 37 adults (23– 28 years) from a low-income area in northeast Brazil. Recommendations included ≥ 6 prenatal consultations, gestational age ≤ 12 weeks at the first visit, participation in 3 educational activities, 2 serology for syphilis (VDRL) and HIV, 1 Toxoplasmosis serology, 2 urine tests, 2 blood glucose and 2 hemoglobin/hematocrit (Hb/Ht) exams. Chi-square tests were used to compare the proportions of adolescents and adults with a record of these procedures in the prenatal cards.Results: Compared to adult women, the adolescent group had lower attainment of almost all recommended components of prenatal care compared to the adult group, with statistically significant differences for 2 blood glucose tests (46.2% vs 78.4%; p=0.004), 2 VDRL tests (30.8% vs 54.1%; p=0.040), 2 Hb/Ht exams (35.9% vs 83.8%; p< 0.001), and at least 6 consultations (84.6% vs 100%; p=0.013).Conclusion: Despite greater health risks of adolescent fertility, the prenatal cards of adolescent mothers presented a poorer record of adherence to recommendations for adequate prenatal care compared to adult mothers from a low-income setting of Brazil. Health policies for both health professionals and the target population are needed to ensure adequacy of prenatal care and appropriate risk reduction for this vulnerable population.Keywords: prenatal care, delivery of health care, health records, personal, pregnancy in adolescence
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".