↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Group versus conventional antenatal care for women. - PubMed - NCBI

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
1 Wikipedia page


130 Dimensions

Readers on

691 Mendeley
Group versus conventional antenatal care for women. - PubMed - NCBI
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007622.pub3
Pubmed ID

Catling, Christine J, Medley, Nancy, Foureur, Maralyn, Ryan, Clare, Leap, Nicky, Teate, Alison, Homer, Caroline S E, Christine J Catling, Nancy Medley, Maralyn Foureur, Clare Ryan, Nicky Leap, Alison Teate, Caroline SE Homer


Antenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model. 1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies.2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy. We included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943).Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes.No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction.We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth). Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 691 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 683 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 128 19%
Student > Bachelor 80 12%
Researcher 72 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 5%
Other 138 20%
Unknown 173 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 189 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 122 18%
Social Sciences 49 7%
Psychology 43 6%
Unspecified 23 3%
Other 70 10%
Unknown 195 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 353,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.