Tiffany Lundeen

Background: Research on group antenatal care in low- and middle-income contexts suggests high acceptability and preliminary implementation success. Methods: We studied the effect of group antenatal care on gestational age at birth among women in Rwanda, hypothesizing that participation would increase mean gestational length. For this unblinded cluster randomized trial, 36 health centers were pair-matched and randomized; half continued individual antenatal care (control), half implemented group antenatal care (intervention). Women who initiated antenatal care between May 2017 and December 2018 were invited to participate, and included in analyses if they presented before 24 weeks gestation, attended at least two visits, and their birth outcome was obtained. We used a generalized estimating equations model for analysis. Findings: In total, 4091 women in 18 control clusters and 4752 women in 18 intervention clusters were included in the analysis. On average, women attended three total antenatal care visits. Gestational length was equivalent in the intervention and control groups (39.3 weeks (SD 1.6) and 39.3 weeks (SD 1.5)). There were no significant differences between groups in secondary outcomes except that more women in control sites attended postnatal care visits (40.1% versus 29.7%, p = 0.003) and more women in intervention sites attended at least three total antenatal care visits (80.7% versus 71.7%, p = 0.003). No harms were observed. Interpretation: Group antenatal care did not result in a difference in gestational length between groups. This may be due to the low intervention dose. We suggest studies of both the effectiveness and costs of higher doses of group antenatal care among women at higher risk of preterm birth. We observed threats to group care due to facility staff shortages; we recommend studies in which antenatal care providers are exclusively allocated to group antenatal care during visits. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03154177

Evidence from high‐income countries suggests that group antenatal care, an alternative service delivery model, may be an effective strategy for improving both the provision and experience of care. Until recently, published research about group antenatal care did not represent findings from low‐ and middle‐income countries, which have health priorities, system challenges, and opportunities that are different than those in high‐income countries. Because high‐quality evidence is limited, the World Health Organization recommends group antenatal care be implemented only in the context of rigorous research. In 2016 the Global Group Antenatal Care Collaborative was formed as a platform for group antenatal care researchers working in low‐ and middle‐income countries to share experiences and shape future research to accelerate development of a robust global evidence base reflecting implementation and outcomes specific to low‐ and middle‐income countries. This article presents a brief history of the Collaborative's work to date, proposes a common definition and key principles for group antenatal care, and recommends an evaluation and reporting framework for group antenatal care research.

Background: For a large trial of the effect of group antenatal care on perinatal outcomes in Rwanda, a Technical Working Group customized the group care model for implementation in this context. This process analysis aimed to understand the degree of fidelity with which the group antenatal care model was implemented during the trial period. Methods: We used two discreet questionnaires to collect data from two groups about the fidelity with which the group antenatal care model was implemented during this trial period. Group care facilitators recorded descriptive data about each visit and self-assessed process fidelity with a series of yes/no checkboxes. Master Trainers assessed process fidelity with an 11-item tool using a 5-point scale of 0 (worst) to 4 (best). Results: We analyzed 2763 questionnaires completed by group care facilitators that documented discreet group visits among pregnant and postnatal women and 140 questionnaires completed by Master Trainers during supervision visits. Data recorded by both groups was available for 84 group care visits, and we compared these assessments by visit. Approximately 80% of all group visits were provided as intended, with respect to both objective measures (e.g. group size) and process fidelity. We did not find reliable correlations between conceptually-related items scored by Master Trainers and self-assessment data reported by group visit facilitators. Conclusions: We recommend both the continued participation of expert observers at new and existing group care sites and ongoing self-assessment by group care facilitators. Finally, we present two abbreviated assessment tools developed by a Rwanda-specific Technical Working Group that reviewed these research results.

The East Africa Preterm Birth Initiative-Rwanda began a cluster randomized controlled trial of group antenatal care (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) in Rwanda in 2017. That trial will report its primary outcome, gestational length at birth, after data collection concludes in 2019. This nested study includes providers of ANC and/or PNC at the 18 health centers randomized to provide the group model of ANC/PNC and the 18 health centers randomized to continue providing ANC/PNC in the traditional, individual visit model. The objective of this study is to understand the experiences of providers of group ANC/PNC and compare their job satisfaction and perceived stress with individual ANC/PNC providers. We collected both quantitative and qualitative data from providers (nurses and midwives) who were recruited by health center directors to participate as group ANC and PNC facilitators at intervention sites and from a similar number of providers of standard ANC and PNC at control sites. Quantitative data was collected with questionnaires administered at baseline and approximately 9 months later (follow up). Qualitative data was collected in 3 focus groups of group ANC/PNC providers conducted one year after group care began. Eighty-six percent of nurses and midwives surveyed who implemented group ANC and PNC reported that they prefer group care to the traditional individual model of ANC and PNC. Perceived stress levels and job satisfaction results were similar between groups. Mixed focus group discussions among both nurses and midwives experienced in group ANC and PNC suggest that the group model of care has advantages for both service beneficiaries and providers. When providers described implementation challenges, their peers in the focus groups offered them suggestions to cope and improve service delivery. These results are consistent with studies of providers of group ANC and PNC in other LMIC contexts with respect to the perceived benefits of group care. This study adds new insights into the ways peer providers can help one another solve implementation problems. When given the opportunity to meet as a group, these study participants offered one another peer support and shared knowledge about best practices for successful implementation of group ANC/PNC. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03154177.

The Preterm Birth Initiative-Rwanda is conducting a 36-cluster randomized controlled trial of group antenatal and postnatal care. In the context of this trial, we collected qualitative data before and after implementation. The purpose was two-fold. First, to inform the design of the group care program before implementation and second, to document women’s experiences of group care at the mid-point of the trial to make ongoing programmatic adjustments and improvements. We completed 8 focus group discussions among women of reproductive age before group care implementation and 6 focus group discussions among women who participated in group antenatal care and/or postnatal care at 18 health centers that introduced the model, approximately 9 months after implementation. Before implementation, focus group participants reported both enthusiasm for the potential for support and insight from a group of peers and concern about the risk of sharing private information with peers who may judge, mock, or gossip. After implementation, group care participants reported benefits including increased knowledge, peer support, and more satisfying relationships with providers. When asked about barriers to group care participation, none of them cited concern about privacy but instead cited lack of financial resources, lack of cooperation from a male partner, and long distances to the health center. Finally, women stated that the group care experience would be improved if all participants and providers arrived on time and remained focused on the group care visit throughout. These results are consistent with other published reports of women’s perceptions of group antenatal care, especially increased pregnancy- and parenting-related knowledge, peer support, and improved relationships with health care providers. Some results were unexpected, especially the consequences of staff allocation patterns that resulted in providers arriving late for group visits or having to leave during group visits to attend to other facility services, which diminished women’s experiences of care. Group antenatal and postnatal care provide compelling benefits to women and families. If the model requires the addition of human resources at the health center, intensive reminder communications, and large-scale community outreach to benefit the largest number of pregnant and postnatal mothers, those additional resources required must be factored into any future decision to scale a group care model. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03154177 .

Introduction: The government of Rwanda is exploring strategies that may reduce the incidence of prematurity and low birth weight. Large‐scale implementation of group antenatal care (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) within the context of the Rwanda national health care system is under consideration. To launch a cluster randomized controlled trial of group ANC and PNC in 5 districts in Rwanda, the implementation team needed a customized group care model for this context and trained health care workers to deliver the program.Process: Adapting the group ANC and group PNC model for the Rwandan context was accomplished through a group process identical to that which is fundamental to group care. A technical working group composed of 10 Rwandan maternal‐child health stakeholders met 3 times over the course of 3 months, for 4 to 8 hours each time. Their objectives were to consider the evidence on group ANC, agree on the priorities and constraints of their ANC delivery system, and ultimately define the content and structure of a combined group ANC and PNC model for implementation in Rwanda. The same group process was employed to train health care workers to act as group ANC facilitators.Outcomes: A customized group ANC and PNC model and guidelines for its introduction were developed in the context of a cluster randomized controlled trial in 36 health centers. Descriptions of this model and the implementation plan are included in this article.Discussion: Our experience suggests that the group process fundamental to successful group ANC and PNC is an effective method to customize and implement this innovative health services delivery model in a new context and is instrumental in achieving local ownership.

Introduction: This study describes the reasons for and outcomes of maternal transfers from private homes and freestanding birthing suites to a large academic hospital in order to better understand and meet the needs of transferring women and their families.Methods: The convenience sample included all adult women admitted to the labor and birth unit or emergency room within a 5‐year period who: 1) had planned to give birth out‐of‐hospital but developed complications at term before the onset of labor and were admitted to the hospital for labor induction; 2) had planned to give birth at home or in a birthing suite but transferred to the hospital during labor; or 3) arrived at the hospital for care within 24 hours after a planned birth at home or in a birthing suite. Descriptive data for each transfer were obtained from the medical record.Results: Fifty‐one transfers were identified: 11 prior to labor, 38 during labor, and 2 postpartum. Only 4 transfers were considered urgent by the referring provider. The most common reasons for intrapartum transfer were prolonged labor (n = 19) and desire for epidural analgesia (n = 10). Only 25% of the medical records had documentation that the referring provider accompanied the woman to the hospital during the care transition or was involved in her hospital course; however, the prenatal and/or intrapartum records had been delivered by the referring provider, were referenced in the hospital admission note, and had become part of the permanent hospital medical record for 85% of the women. On average, one transfer per year was complicated by neonatal morbidity, and one transfer per year involved significant disagreement between hospital providers and the women presenting for care.Discussion: Collecting and reviewing data about a facility's perinatal transfer events can help the local multi‐stakeholder group appraise current practice and plan for quality improvement.