3.9 Article

Audipog perinatal network. Part 1: Principal perinatal health indicators, 2004-2005

Journal

GYNECOLOGIE OBSTETRIQUE & FERTILITE
Volume 36, Issue 11, Pages 1091-1100

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2008.08.010

Keywords

Perinatal health; Prenatal care; Delivery; Medical practice assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. - To present the principal perinatal indicators for 2004-20.05, based on data from the Audipog sentinel network. Patients and methods. - The database for 2004 and 2005 covers 71,406 pregnancies from 86 maternity units throughout the year. We constructed a random subsample each year by including only the births occurring during a single month for each maternity ward. Our study therefore analyzes 6987 pregnancies in 2004 and 7648 pregnancies in 2005. Results. - The number of women working during pregnancy increased between 2004 and 2005 (62.3% versus 66.3%) (p = 0.0008) as did the percentage with a postsecondary education (35.1% versus 41.9%) (p < 0.0001). The percentage. of amniocenteses declined (10.4% versus 7.9%) (p < 0.0001). Use of prenatal care improved: more women had prenatal visits before week 14 (30.5% versus 33.9%) (p = 0.0002), and fewer women had no prenatal care at all (1.1% versus 0.4%) (p = 0.0003). The percentage of preterm deliveries was 6.4% in 2004 and 7% in 2005 (p = 0.14) and the percentage of induced preterm deliveries was 37% in 2004 and 41.2% in 2005 (p = 0.18). The cesarean rate was essentially stable (19 and 19.2%) and the rate of instrumental intervention in vaginal deliveries fell from 13.1% in 2004 to 11.2% in 2005 (p = 0.0015). Discussion and conclusion. - The rates of cesarean and of preterm deliveries remained stable between 2004 and 2005, but the rate of induced preterm deliveries rose. These indicators are consistent with trends that began earlier. (C) 2008 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits reserves.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available