Understanding the impact of antenatal care policies in Georgia (USA) and Scotland (UK): A textual synthesis

J. Shim, V. Burnett, M. Vernon, F. Work, I. Uwaifo, C. Ray, P. Reddi
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.21.24304668

Abstract

Objectives This study aims to (1) understand the role of policy in maternal health outcomes, and (2) establish any differences or similarities between health systems, providing benchmarks for future maternal and infant care policies in Georgia and Scotland.

Methods Guided by JBI methodology, a textual review of policies and public health interventions that have influenced the antenatal care process in both health systems was conducted. Inclusion criteria for this review were classified using the “PCC” mnemonic: Population-Pregnant women and mothers; Concept-Policies and strategies that supports prenatal and maternal health; and Context-Relevant to Scotland and Georgia. Published primary and secondary research, and grey literature (guidelines, reports, and legislation from authoritative sources) were included.

Results Overall, 60 sources contributed to the report on maternal health system topics. Findings of the textual synthesis presented a regionalized system of maternity care led by physician-provided care models in Georgia compared to the nationalized health system in Scotland with an extended scope for midwife-led care models. On a secondary, organizational level, Scotland also widely operates on protocolized, standardized care informed by clinical guidelines such as NICE. The Georgia health systems also follow national guidelines for care, but extent of standardization may vary based on a mixed system of private and public insurance coverage.

Discussion/Conclusion This is the first study to comprehensively examine maternal health policies in the distinct contexts of Georgia and Scotland, shedding light on the diverse approaches within their respective healthcare systems. These observed variations stem from historical, cultural, and policy contexts unique to each region. As the United States continue to prioritize maternal and child health through public health initiatives, our findings feature crucial considerations for maternal antenatal care policies. Specifically, there is a discernible need to increase access to antenatal care and invest in the maternity care provider workforce, revealing opportunities for targeted improvements in support of maternal health.

Introduction

Maternal and infant health disparities are a pressing global concern, with the United States (US) experiencing the highest maternal and infant mortality rates among high-income nations.1,2 This rising trend in mortality rates has brought maternal and infant health to the forefront of many recent public health and research initiatives within the US.3

Georgia has the second highest maternal mortality rate and the twelfth highest infant mortality rate in the US.4,5 Similar to the rest of the US, research has indicated Black mothers in Georgia are more likely to die from pregnancy, especially in rural areas.4 Understanding the factors affecting maternal and infant health in these underserved regions is crucial in addressing healthcare disparities in the US.6

In comparison, while Georgia had a maternal mortality rate of 50.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 births in 2019, Scotland (UK) reported a lower rate of 10.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 births between 2017-2019.7,8 In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the US compared to 861 women in 2020 and 754 women in 2019.3 Both rural regions in Scotland and Georgia face similar healthcare challenges, including a need for physicians and limited access to care.9 This shared context offers an important point of comparison between the healthcare systems that operate within these regions. Despite both countries being high-income nations with high rankings on the Human Development Index (HDI),10 they offer distinct healthcare systems and policies for comparison.

The US, with its decentralized and predominantly privatized healthcare system, faces unique challenges in ensuring equitable access to maternal care across diverse regions.11 In contrast, Scotland’s publicly funded and centralized healthcare system strives to provide comprehensive healthcare coverage, albeit with its own set of challenges.12 Understanding these variations in healthcare systems, their infrastructure, and policies in the context of maternal and infant health, may elucidate the factors contributing to disparities in preterm birth rates and inform discussions on maternal care quality and policy reforms in these regions. This understanding is not only valuable for the nations involved but also contributes to global efforts to reduce persistent inequalities in health, attainment, and life expectancies, especially in marginalized communities.13,14

Therefore, our study aims to (1) understand the role of policy in maternal health outcomes, and (2) establish any differences or similarities between health systems, providing benchmarks for future maternal and infant care policies in Georgia and Scotland.

Methods

Study Design

A comparative approach was conducted through a textual synthesis of published literature on the health systems and policies influencing maternal health in Georgia and Scotland. We recognized that health systems are complex and multifaceted, influenced by a multitude of variables including government policies, law, national infrastructure, socioeconomic conditions, cultural norms, and the interactions of various stakeholders – patients, providers, payors, and policymakers.15 Therefore, the intention of the textual review was to provide a nuanced understanding of the policy landscapes of each region to encourage any cross-regional learning.

Textual Review of Maternal Health Literature

The textual review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology.16

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria for this review were classified using the “PICo” (Population, Phenomenon of interest, Context) mnemonic: Population: Pregnant and birthing women; Phenomenon of Interest: Policy strategies to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality; and Context: Health setting in the UK and the US.16

Type of sources

Expert opinions, consensus, current discourse, comments, assumptions, or assertions that appear in various formats including journals, magazines, newspapers, blogs, internet sites, monographs and reports were largely drawn for this analysis. We reviewed grey literature that contains policy- and research-relevant information (e.g., clinical practice guidelines, national reports, program evaluation studies, and legislation) from authoritative sources that are widely accessible.17

Search strategy

The search comprised of three steps; Firstly, a limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL using initial keywords was conducted to develop a full search strategy. Secondly, the full search strategy was adapted to each database and applied systematically to: MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, EMBase, and Cochrane Library (see Appendix 1). Finally, the third step involved conducting a search of grey and unpublished literature in the Maternity and Infant Care database, Open Grey, MedNar, The New York Academy Grey Literature Report, Ethos, CORE, and Google Scholar using modified search terms for maternal health-related policies. We also searched the US Congress online legislative database and Georgia online legislative database for national and Georgia state-level proposed legislation and legislation passed between 2000 and 2020 addressing maternal health. No limit was placed on language, but all of the research studies published were in English.

Study selection

Following the search, all identified sources were collated and uploaded into EndNote and duplicates were removed. Sources were then imported to Covidence (Melbourne, Australia) for two-level screening. Firstly, titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers (PR and VB) with conflicts identified by the management software and resolved by a third reviewer (JS and FW). Secondly, full-text copies of all sources included at the title and abstract screening stage were screened using the same processes.

Quality assessment

Due to the nature of grey literature, which was largely descriptive and based on expert opinions, it was not appropriate to critically appraise the evidence for this textual synthesis.

Data extraction and synthesis

A data extraction tool was developed for this review to extract relevant information about the study and key findings. Data that were extracted were synthesized with the use of tabulation and graphs and presented alongside an accompanying narrative. The synthesis was focused on data relating to similarities and differences between the countries.

Results

Findings from the textual synthesis

The initial search identified 846 articles in the databases, supplemented by a further 253 studies from the grey literature (websites and expert sources). 60 reports were included following full-text screening. Figure 1 presents the study selection process and the main reasons for exclusion.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of included studies

A wide variety of different journals and policies contributed to the report on maternal health system topics, including the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Maternal and Child Health Journal, and the World Health Organization. Of the 60 included reports, 42 were related to Scottish policies while 18 were specific to Georgia. The majority of the studies were widely accessible public reports with a descriptive component to their design. 27 observational and experimental studies examined the contents of policy or its impact, and 7 were reviews of the literature. Table 1 presents a summary of the characteristics of the included studies.

View this table:
Table 1 Table of characteristics of included literature

We carried out a textual synthesis of the data with the intention to review literature that relates synoptically to maternal health service; highlighting similarities and differences between the two countries. The literature outlined the public health systems at three main levels: (1) primary level – action taken at national or country level; (2) secondary level – action taken at policy or legislative level; and (3) tertiary levels – action was taken at regional or a specific city or locality-based e.g., programs.

Primary level – national or country level

Maternal care in Scotland is currently provided through the National Health Service Scotland (NHS Scotland).12 Scotland is divided into 14 NHS regional Health Boards, each responsible for planning and delivering healthcare services within a specific geographical area.18 Specialized maternity services may sometimes be provided at a national or regional level instead of individual Health Boards. Generally, maternal care in the UK includes routine antenatal and postnatal care, midwifery-led care for low-risk pregnancies, and consultant care (obstetrics or specialists care) for higher-risk pregnancies or medical complications.19 Scottish professionals in maternity and neonatal care adhere to established clinical and professional protocols that outline the standards for safe and efficient services, developed by organizations like the British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM), National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). These guidelines are often protocolized and embedded into practice to support equitable care.

Similarly, the US also strongly adopts evidence-based guidelines and recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) to guide their delivery of maternal and infant care. However, implementation and protocolization of guidelines varies in the US due to its healthcare system, which involves a mix of public and private healthcare providers, insurance systems, and government subsidies.20 Healthcare in the US is the responsibility of individual states, and while there are national policies and legislations, it should be noted that there can be significant variations in healthcare planning and policy at the state level. Other healthcare coverage provided by the government includes Medicaid and Medicare which serves different populations. Medicaid serves those whose income and/or resources fall below a designated level while Medicare provides coverage for the elderly.

One of the most heavily cited legislation supporting the expansion of healthcare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that was enacted in 2010. The primary goal of the ACA was to expand access to health and improving the quality and affordability of healthcare.21 The historical healthcare reform law mandates that every individual have health insurance starting in 2014. The expansion of Medicaid eligibility under the law has successfully slowed the rise in maternal mortality rates among Black pregnant and birthing individuals in states where it has been implemented. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) required the coverage of preventive services, such as contraception, and prohibited discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, including pregnancy. Despite these efforts to expand on health coverage, 26 million people or 8% of the population remains uninsured and rely on safety net programs and charity care.23

Furthermore, coverage of pregnancy-related healthcare varies in the state of Georgia by stage of pregnancy.24 Medicaid offers access to physicians’ visits, prescription medicines, and in- and out-patient hospital services for pregnant women with an income of up to 220% above the poverty line. Labor and delivery costs are also covered through Medicaid, and coverage lasts up to six months after giving birth. Between 2012-2014, Medicaid was utilized by 12.6% of mothers a month prior to pregnancy while 36.9% of Georgian mothers were uninsured during this time period.25

Maternal care models in Scotland and Georgia also vary, with Scotland favoring a midwife-led approach and Georgia predominantly relying on physician-led care.19,26 The Best Start report outlined Scotland’s approach to maternity and neonatal care, emphasizing midwife-led models following national guidelines that encourage women without significant health issues to utilize community-based midwife-led care services.12 The comparison between midwife-led maternal care in Scotland and physician-led maternal services in Georgia, underscores some of the differences in healthcare models, midwifery roles, and the policies that support the extended scope of practice, in the UK and the US. These variations have been shaped by the historical, cultural, and policy contexts of each region.

Secondary level – policy or legislative level

A proportionate number of the included literature were policy and legislative-driven. A summary of the policy and empirical evidence from the textual synthesis can be found in Appendix 2. These policies and relevant frameworks were mapped in chronological order on a timeline for both states as illustrated in Figure 2 and 3.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Timeline of maternal policies and legislations in Scotland, UK
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Timeline of maternal policies and legislations in Georgia, USA

Scotland

Several key policy frameworks have played a significant role in shaping the strategic landscape for providing maternity and neonatal services in Scotland. The National Framework for Maternity Services in Scotland27 was derived to provide a structured approach to the planning and delivery of high-standard maternity services. Despite the policy’s intentions, historically, there have been translational challenges in practice due to the lack of a clear implementation structure. Expert Group on Acute Maternity Services (EGAMS) was established and published a reference report in 2002 recommending the centralization of maternity services in Scotland and the establishment of interdisciplinary teams to enhance safety and quality of maternity care.27 EGAMS also recognized the importance of improving maternity services in rural areas due to the challenges they face, playing a significant role in shaping the direction of maternity care in Scotland. Although the general framework and guidelines for providing maternity care are set at a national level, there is no specific approach or model to service delivery, allowing individual NHS Boards to tailor their services to suit the needs of their locality.

The Refreshed Framework for Maternity Care in Scotland28 was further developed to improve maternal and infant health and diminish disparities in health outcomes. It also established guiding principles and service benchmarks for maternity care throughout Scotland. The Quality Framework for Neonatal Care in Scotland29 provided guidance on providing high quality, evidence-based, safe, effective and person-focused neonatal care.

Continuity of care had been a pivotal policy affecting maternity care in England since 1993 with the publication of Changing Childbirth and an emphasis on Choice, Continuity and Control, person-centered care in the National Service Framework Maternity Standard and Maternity Matters.30,31 Therefore, in 2017, Scotland introduced the ’Best Start’ policy, which identified the future vision of real continuity of care throughout the entire maternity process, with a particular emphasis on supporting vulnerable families as a fundamental aspect in advancing maternity services across Scotland within a five-year timeframe. This current policy emphasizes the provision of consistent care from a dedicated healthcare professional or a team throughout pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period. It promotes person-centered, personalized care and fosters trust between patients and healthcare providers, which has been shown to enhance their overall experience and improve maternal and infant outcomes. NHS Scotland released the Health Improvement, Efficiency, Access to Services, and Treatment Appropriate (HEAT) initiative aimed to measure and improve the timeliness of access to antenatal care for pregnant women in Scotland.32 Performance data against current local standards showed that Scotland met the target as the lowest performance even in areas with the highest levels of deprivation (measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation33 was 88.35% (i.e., 88% of expectant mothers had scheduled antenatal care appointments by the 12th week of pregnancy for the year ending March 2021).

A broad range of ongoing audit, legislative, and improvement efforts have been undertaken with the aim to improve clinical standards and outcomes throughout Scotland. The Maternal and Children’s Quality Improvement Collaborative (MCQIC), initiated in 2013 as part of the Scottish Patient Safety Programme, is one such initiative.34 Established in 2011, the Stillbirth Group aims to decrease stillbirth rates in Scotland by increasing awareness of risk factors, supporting research, and advocating for bereavement support and resources.35 Another major audit is the Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries in the UK (MBRRACE), established in 2013, which examines maternal deaths, stillbirths, and infant deaths to facilitate continuous quality improvement efforts.36 Additionally, the Each Baby Counts program by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) aims to minimize the occurrence of preventable adverse incidents during term labor.37 In addition, there are several other public health initiatives that progressed in Scotland to reduce health disparities among diverse populations. These include the WHO self-assessment audit tool to measure the quality of health promotion activity of maternity services in Scotland.35 The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act Scottish Government38 imposed legislative measures to reduce smoking rates, exposure to second-hand smoke, and smoking cessation support as it recognizes the adverse effects of smoking on maternal and infant health. This legislation resulted in a wide public health impact.39

Georgia

Several key policies have impacted maternal health care in the state of Georgia, USA. The expansion of Medicaid eligibility for pregnant women has been a critical policy in improving access to maternal healthcare. This policy aims to provide coverage for low-income pregnant women, ensuring access to prenatal care.

Like Scotland, Georgia has implemented policies promoting continuity of care with the same healthcare provider with the aim to establish trust and rapport between healthcare professionals and expectant mothers. The Certified Nurse-Midwife (CNM) Involvement in Care played a vital role in maternal care, offering a more holistic and lower medical intervention approaches to childbirth.

Other programs and initiatives also had positive impacts on maternal and child health in Georgia. Centering Pregnancy: A Model for Group Prenatal Care is a group-based prenatal care model that offers support, education, and a community for mothers-to-be.40 Group prenatal care consisted of sessions with a nurse and midwife where basic prenatal physical assessments and issues such as nutrition, common discomforts, labor and delivery, infant care, and postpartum were addressed. Significant collaborations have been established between clinical care, public health, and policy entities at Grady. Examples include initiatives like the Grady Healthy Baby Initiative, aimed at addressing underlying factors contributing to adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, as well as disparities among vulnerable populations, both locally and statewide.41

Georgia is also involved in perinatal quality collaboratives aimed at improving the quality of care for mothers and infants. These collaboratives focus on evidence-based practices and guidelines to address maternal and infant outcomes. The Perinatal Case Management programs was introduced in April 2014 to identify and address the complex needs of high-risk pregnant women by providing comprehensive support to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes such as preterm births.42 The CDC initiated the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (PMSS) in 1986 to conduct national surveillance of all pregnancy-related deaths. At the state or local level, the Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs) would convene to investigate and review maternal deaths. These committees were set up to investigate the causes and risk factors for pregnancy-related deaths in the US and develop strategies to prevent future mortalities.

Georgia was one of the first states in the US to adopt telemedicine through the implementation of the Georgia Telehealth Law in 2005. This initiative aimed to establish clear definitions and a legal structure for providing remote medical services to overcome geographical challenges posed by rurality.43

Tertiary level – regional or specific city or locality-based level

Different models of care delivery have been implemented in Scotland and Georgia including traditional physician care, group-based prenatal care, and midwifery-led care. The overarching goal is to provide person-centered care and higher satisfaction among expectant mothers.44 All pregnant women will see a range of health professionals depending on their care needs. While the majority of births occur in hospitals, the choices available for birthplace can vary depending on the locality and are often influenced by the individual preferences of the woman. In Scotland, approximately 2.6% of births occur in community settings, and antenatal care can be provided in both community and hospital settings. In the United States, nearly all births (98%) take place in hospitals,45 with approximately 91% attended by physicians and 8.7% attended by midwives, a statistic that is unique to the US.46 In contrast, many other high-income countries rely more heavily on midwifery care and have fewer hospital births.47

Every maternity unit in Scotland has obtained accreditation from the UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI).48 Scotland’s four largest neonatal units are close to achieving full implementation of the neonatal BFI standards, while other units are working towards this goal. Additionally, a Scotland-wide donor milk bank was established in 2013 to ensure equitable access to breast milk for the smallest and most vulnerable infants across the country.49 In Georgia, the involvement of peer counsellors, particularly in breastfeeding support programs has been beneficial in encouraging and supporting breastfeeding which has documented health benefits for both mothers and infants.

Discussion

Our findings demonstrate the varied approaches of the Georgia and Scotland health systems and their influence on maternal care and wellbeing. Both systems share a commitment towards providing continuity of care for the expectant mothers in their regions, acknowledging the clinical benefits of promoting deepened person-centered trust. Their differences originate at a national level resulting in macro-level barriers and facilitators to health (e.g., availability of infrastructure, facilities, and medical staff).50 Scotland has a heavily guideline-driven approach to its medical practice due to its centralized health system framework, as opposed to the largely privatized US healthcare market, which subsequently allows additional room for personalized care. Furthermore, the US healthcare system is more physician-centered compared to its Scottish counterpart, which prioritizes midwifery-centered care in the absence of high-risk comorbidities or complications. This discrepancy in practitioner emphasis allows the differences to pervade into the regional level, as demonstrated by the variations in delivery setting: births in the non-hospital setting are not uncommon in Scotland, while the vast majority of births in the US occur in physician-led hospitals.

Georgia has one of the more restrictive state policies regarding the licensing of midwives, with the criminalization of midwifery practice without a nursing credential. As of 2018, there are only 550 Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) in the state of Georgia51 and they face challenges such as identifying physician collaborators and obtaining hospital privileges, making it extremely challenging to access midwifery care. Additionally, 73% of counties in Georgia lack hospitals that provide maternity care, with 36.7% being classified as ’maternity care deserts’.52 In response to this maternal health crisis, Georgia has implemented several initiatives, including a Maternal Mortality Review Committee (MMRC), and a Perinatal Quality Collaborative (GaPQC) involving key stakeholders.

The demographic and geographic variations between Georgia and Scotland may also explain their varied policies. Georgia’s estimated 2022 population is 10.9 million. While most of the inhabitants are White (59%), 33% are Black/African American, 10% are Hispanic, and 4.8% are Asian. A significant portion of the state’s population, 39.7%, live in rural parts of the state with higher poverty rate compared to urban areas of the state (19% vs. 13%) based on American Community Survey (ACS) data.53 Scotland, by comparison, has a smaller population of 5.4 million, with only 17% of its population living in rural areas of the country.54 The racial breakdown of Scotland’s population is more homogenous to that of Georgia, with 96% of its population being White.55 Such variations in spatial barriers and socioeconomic status are important when considering the differences in birth outcomes. The larger, more diverse, and more rural population in Georgia can present with more obstetric and neonatal challenges, leading to a higher need for maternal care services.

The different healthcare infrastructures present in Georgia and Scotland may also be due to the conceptual framework underlying their respective public health systems and the populations each system was originally designed to serve. The US public healthcare system, through programs known as Medicare and Medicaid, was established in the 1965 to provide care to the elderly and others who were deemed medically and financially disadvantaged in the setting of rising healthcare costs.56 Despite these programs, the US healthcare system continues to be driven by the private sector, with employer-based coverage currently being the main source of health insurance for working families.57 As such, social determinants of health including economic stability, timely access to health care providers and the quality of maternal care are known risk factors for maternal outcomes.4 A recent survey in Georgia revealed that improving the affordability of maternal health care and access to insurance coverage remain the top priorities to tackle this health crisis.58 On the other hand, the UK National Health Service (NHS) was implemented in 1948 to provide preventative and curative healthcare to its entire population after the nation endured large numbers of its population requiring medical attention during World War II. Therefore, with the UK’s emphasis on public healthcare coverage for a broader target population, Scotland’s inhabitants benefit from a more accessible and affordable healthcare system compared to their American counterparts.59

This study is the first to comparatively explore health policies between Georgia and Scotland, two regions with vastly different healthcare systems. Furthermore, no studies explore varied policies between the broader US and UK health systems. Our study utilizes primary literature, such as clinical guidelines and legislative documents, and secondary literature, such as news articles and expert opinions. While this allows us to gain a holistic insight through objective information regarding Scotland and Georgia’s policies as well as subjective information regarding their impact on their respective communities, the use of grey literature such as news and expert opinions may introduce some bias. One strength is our multi-layered approach to policy impact, allowing us to clearly demonstrate how healthcare policy has a trickle-down effect on the provision of healthcare services from the national to the local level. However, the study’s focus on maternal policies may overlook other important factors such as individual health behaviors and community-level determinants of health. Furthermore, the study was limited by the lack of literature on rural health policies in Scotland which demonstrates decreased rurality-centered policy in Scotland, representing an area for benchmarking.

The results of this study have potential to shape approaches to maternal care and can be utilized to provide recommendations for future clinical practice in Georgia and Scotland. For example, staffing shortages have long been a contributor to the maternal mortality rate in Georgia.24

Scotland was able to address this concern through increased mid-level provider involvement in uncomplicated cases, which increases access to basic prenatal needs across the country and subsequently boosts obstetrician availability for more complex cases (Scottish Government, 2017).12 These findings align with current discussions regarding licensure for midwives and maternity care providers, reflecting the timeliness and relevance of this textual synthesis. The evidence suggest that an expansion in midwifery licensure and training, extended scope of practice, and integrated community-based practice is equitable and cost-effective in reducing the gap in maternal health.47,51,52,60 While these changes may affect policy at the regional level, broader changes at the legislative or national level would require fundamental changes to their respective socioeconomic and healthcare system.

Conclusion

This study has identified an important gap in literature addressing the health challenges faced in rural Scotland. This information is necessary to understand the current operations and challenges of antenatal and maternal care in those areas and to provide an important area of comparison to Georgia. Additional research, incorporating population-based data, is needed to fully understand the impact of policy on maternal and child health outcomes in rural Georgia and rural Scotland. It is also important to explore additional indicators of healthcare quality, including patient satisfaction and the availability of healthcare resources.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

No ethical or IRB approval was needed because this is a study of secondary data evidence synthesis.

Funding

This study was funded by Augusta University through their intramural grant.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Tikkanen R, Gunja M, FitzGerald M, Zephyrin L. Maternal Mortality Maternity Care in the United States Compared 10 Other Countries. The Commonwealth Fund Issue Briefs. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/nov/maternal-mortality-maternity-care-us-compared-10-countries. Published November 18, 2020. Accessed March 16, 2022.
  2. 2.↵
    Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System | Maternal and Infant Health | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  3. 3.↵
    Hoyert DL. Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021. :2021. doi:10.15620/cdc:113967
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    Armstrong-Mensah EA, Dada D, Bowers A, Muhammad A, Nnoli C. Geographic, Health Care Access, Racial Discrimination, and Socioeconomic Determinants of Maternal Mortality in Georgia, United States. International Journal of Maternal and Child Health and AIDS. 2021;10(2):278. doi:10.21106/IJMA.524
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Stats of the States - Infant Mortality. 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_rates/infant_mortality.htm. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  6. 6.↵
    Chinn JJ, Eisenberg E, Artis Dickerson S, et al. Maternal mortality in the United States: research gaps, opportunities, and priorities. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(4):486–492.e6. doi:10.1016/J.AJOG.2020.07.021
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    Pregnancy, births and maternity: Stillbirth, neonatal and infant deaths and maternal death. Scottish Public Health Observatory. https://www.scotpho.org.uk/population-dynamics/pregnancy-births-and-maternity/data/pregnancy-outcomes-2-live-births-and-infant-and-maternal-deaths/. Published 2023. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  8. 8.↵
    Hernandez ND, Aina AD, Baker LJ, et al. Maternal health equity in Georgia: a Delphi consensus approach to definition and research priorities. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/S12889-023-15395-3/TABLES/2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    Filippi V, Chou D, Ronsmans C, Graham W, Say L. Levels and Causes of Maternal Mortality and Morbidity. Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 2): Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health. April 2016:51–70. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0348-2_CH3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Human development index. https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/human-development-index. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  11. 11.↵
    Emanuel EJ, Persad G, Upshur R, et al. Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(21):2049–2055. doi:10.1056/NEJMSB2005114/SUPPL_FILE/NEJMSB2005114_DISCLOSURES.PDF
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Scottish Government. Scottish Health Survey 2019 - volume 1: main report. Closing the poverty-related attainment gap: progress report 2016 to 2021. 2021:1–253. http://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-health-survey-2019-volume-1-main-report/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  13. 13.↵
  14. 14.↵
    WHO WHO. Improving maternal and newborn health and survival and reducing stillbirth - Progress report 2023. 2023:34. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073678. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  15. 15.↵
    Lübbeke A, Carr AJ, Hoffmeyer P. Registry stakeholders. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(6):330. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.4.180077
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Aromataris E, Munn Z. Introduction to Scoping reviews. JBI Manuals for Evidence Synthesis. 2020:2018–2021. https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/11.1+Introduction+to+Scoping+reviews. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  17. 17.↵
    Godin K, Stapleton J, Kirkpatrick SI, Hanning RM, Leatherdale ST. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: A case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/S13643-015-0125-0/FIGURES/2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    NHS Scotland | UKHDRA. https://ukhealthdata.org/members/nhs-scotland/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  19. 19.↵
    The Scottish Government. The best start: five-year plan for maternity and neonatal care. 2017;(January):121–131. http://www.gov.scot/publications/best-start-five-year-forward-plan-maternity-neonatal-care-scotland/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  20. 20.↵
    Donald A. Barr MP. Introduction to US Health Policy. Introduction to US Health Policy. May 2023. doi:10.56021/9781421446462
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Warren MD, Kavanagh LD. Over a Century of Leadership for Maternal and Child Health in the United States: An Updated History of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Matern Child Health J. March 2023:1–15. doi:10.1007/S10995-023-03629-0/TABLES/4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.
    Eliason EL. Adoption of Medicaid Expansion Is Associated with Lower Maternal Mortality. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2020.01.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    The Share of Americans without Health Insurance in 2022 Matched a Record Low. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/11/the-share-of-americans-without-health-insurance-in-2022-matched-a-record-low. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  24. 24.↵
    Miteniece E, Pavlova M, Shengelia L, Rechel B, Groot W. Barriers to accessing adequate maternal care in Georgia: a qualitative study. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3432-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    CMS. Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. 2018.
  26. 26.↵
    Deutchman M, Macaluso F, Bray E, et al. The impact of family physicians in rural maternity care. Birth. 2022;49(2):220–232. doi:10.1111/BIRT.12591
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    EXPERT GROUP ON ACUTE MATERNITY SERVICES REFERENCE REPORT.
  28. 28.↵
    Scottish Government. A Refreshed Framework for Maternity Care in Scotland: The Maternity Services Action Group. Scottish Government. 2009;1(1):1–86. http://www.gov.scot/publications/refreshed-framework-maternity-care-scotland-maternity-services-action-group/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Neonatal Care in Scotland: A Quality Framework. http://www.gov.scot/publications/neonatal-care-scotland-quality-framework/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  30. 30.↵
    Department of Health. Changing Childbirth: Report of the Expert Maternity Group. 1993:112. https://search.worldcat.org/title/277249987. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  31. 31.↵
    National service framework: children, young people and maternity services - GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-service-framework-children-young-people-and-maternity-services. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  32. 32.↵
    National Performance Framework | National Performance Framework. https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  33. 33.↵
    Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2020. http://www.gov.scot/collections/scottish-index-of-multiple-deprivation-2020/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  34. 34.↵
    Scottish Patient Safety Programme (SPSP) | ihub | Health and social care improvement in Scotland - Scottish Patient Safety Programme (SPSP). https://ihub.scot/improvement-programmes/scottish-patient-safety-programme-spsp/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  35. 35.↵
    STANDARDS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY OF MATERNAL AND NEWBORN CARE IN HEALTH FACILITIES.
  36. 36.↵
    Manktelow BN, Smith LK, Evans A, et al. Maternal, Newborn and Infant Clinical Outcome Review Programme MBRRACE-UK Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report UK Perinatal Deaths for births from January to December 2013 Supplementary Report UK Trusts and Health Boards. 2015.
  37. 37.↵
    RCOG 2021 Each baby counts: 2020 final progress report. https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/a4eg2xnm/ebc-2020-final-progress-report.pdf. Published 2021. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  38. 38.↵
    Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005.
  39. 39.↵
    Hyland A, Hassan LM, Higbee C, et al. The impact of smokefree legislation in Scotland: results from the Scottish ITC Scotland/UK longitudinal surveys. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn141
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    Reid J. Centering Pregnancy: a model for group prenatal care. Nurs Womens Health. 2007;11(4):382–388. doi:10.1111/j.1751-486X.2007.00194.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Jamieson DJ, Haddad LB. What Obstetrician-Gynecologists Should Know About Population Health. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002638
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Bell J. Perinatal Case Management. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing. 2016;45(3):S8. doi:10.1016/j.jogn.2016.03.034
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Telemedicine in Georgia: Law, Rules, Regulations, and Policies | Blog. https://blog.curogram.com/telemedicine-georgia. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  44. 44.↵
    Brady S, Bogossian F, Gibbons KS. Achieving international consensus on the concept of woman-centred care: A Delphi study. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2023.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    National Academies of Sciences E and M. Birth Settings in America: Outcomes, Quality, Access, and Choice. Birth Settings in America. February 2020. doi:10.17226/25636
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Caughey AB, Cheyney M. Home and birth center birth in the United States: Time for greater collaboration across models of care. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;133(5):1033–1050. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003215
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    Sangy MT, Duaso M, Feeley C, Walker S. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of midwife-led care for childbearing women in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review. Midwifery. 2023;122. doi:10.1016/J.MIDW.2023.103696
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    The Scottish Government. Scottish maternal and infant nutrition survey 2017. 3/10/2017. 2018:60. http://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-maternal-infant-nutrition-survey-2017/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  49. 49.↵
    Funding for breast milk bank. http://www.gov.scot/news/funding-for-breast-milk-bank/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  50. 50.↵
    Smith T, McNeil K, Mitchell R, Boyle B, Ries N. A study of macro-, meso- and micro-barriers and enablers affecting extended scopes of practice: The case of rural nurse practitioners in Australia. BMC Nurs. 2019;18(1):1–12. doi:10.1186/S12912-019-0337-Z/FIGURES/1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    Hallerman T. Black midwives carry on traditions but fight for legitimacy in Georgia. https://www.ajc.com/life/black-midwives-carry-on-traditions-but-fight-for-legitimacy-in-georgia/FQLWESLD2JF47OEBMZUKM4GOCA/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  52. 52.↵
    Registration data reports - The Nursing and Midwifery Council. https://www.nmc.org.uk/about-us/reports-and-accounts/registration-statistics/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  53. 53.↵
    Georgia - Rural Population - 2023 Data 2024 Forecast 1960-2022 Historical. https://tradingeconomics.com/georgia/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  54. 54.↵
    Scottish Government. Rural Scotland Key Facts 2021. Closing the poverty-related attainment gap: progress report 2016 to 2021. 2021:1–253. http://www.gov.scot/publications/rural-scotland-key-facts-2021/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  55. 55.↵
    Ethnicity | Scotland’s Census. https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/ethnicity/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  56. 56.↵
    Moore JD, Smith DG. Legislating Medicaid: Considering Medicaid and Its Origins. Health Care Financ Rev. 2005;27(2):45. /pmc/articles/PMC4194918/. Accessed December 27, 2023.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Hoffman C, Paradise J. Health insurance and access to health care in the United States. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1136:149–160. doi:10.1196/ANNALS.1425.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.↵
    New survey reveals insight into Georgia’s maternal health crisis. https://news.emory.edu/stories/2023/11/hs_maternal_health_symposium_29_11_2023/story.html. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  59. 59.↵
    Greengross P, Grant K, Collini E. The history and development of the UK National Health Service 1948 - 1999. 1948. www.healthsystemsrc.org. Accessed December 27, 2023.
  60. 60.↵
    Yoder H, Hardy LR. Midwifery and Antenatal Care for Black Women: A Narrative Review. Sage Open. 2018;8(1). doi:10.1177/2158244017752220
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.
    Vladutiu CJ, Mobley SC, Ji X, et al. A Methodological Approach for Evaluating the Enterprise Community Healthy Start Program in Rural Georgia: An Analysis Using Linked PRAMS, Birth Records and Program Data. Matern Child Health J. 2021;25(10):1516. doi:10.1007/S10995-021-03205-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.
    Vanderlaan J, Edwards JA, Dunlop A. Geospatial variation in caesarean delivery. Nurs Open. 2020;7(2):627–633. doi:10.1002/NOP2.433
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.
    Rust G, Nembhard WN, Nichols M, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in the provision of epidural analgesia to Georgia Medicaid beneficiaries during labor and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):456–462. doi:10.1016/J.AJOG.2004.03.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    Pinto M, Rochat R, Hennink M, Zertuche AD, Spelke B. Bridging the Gaps in Obstetric Care: Perspectives of Service Delivery Providers on Challenges and Core Components of Care in Rural Georgia. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(7):1349–1357. doi:10.1007/S10995-016-1995-Z/FIGURES/3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.
    Mosley EA, Pratt M, Besera G, et al. Evaluating Birth Outcomes From a Community-Based Pregnancy Support Program for Refugee Women in Georgia. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021;2. doi:10.3389/FGWH.2021.655409
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.
    Mobley SC, Thomas SD, Sutherland DE, Hudgins J, Ange BL, Johnson MH. Maternal Health Literacy Progression Among Rural Perinatal Women. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18(8):1881. doi:10.1007/S10995-014-1432-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.
    Meyer E, Hennink M, Rochat R, et al. Working Towards Safe Motherhood: Delays and Barriers to Prenatal Care for Women in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas of Georgia. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(7):1358–1365. doi:10.1007/S10995-016-1997-X/TABLES/3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.
    Grant JH, Handwerk K, Baker K, Milling VL, Barlow S, Vladutiu CJ. Implementing Group Prenatal Care in Southwest Georgia Through Public–Private Partnerships. Matern Child Health J. 2018;22(11):1535–1542. doi:10.1007/S10995-018-2576-0/TABLES/3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.
    Gavin NI, Benedict MB, Adams EK. Health service use and outcomes among disabled Medicaid pregnant women. Women’s Health Issues. 2006;16(6):313–322. doi:10.1016/J.WHI.2006.10.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.
    Daymude AEC, Daymude JJ, Rochat R. Labor and Delivery Unit Closures in Rural Georgia from 2012 to 2016 and the Impact on Black Women: A Mixed-Methods Investigation. Matern Child Health J. 2022;26(4):796–805. doi:10.1007/S10995-022-03380-Y/TABLES/3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.
    Bruce FC, Berg CJ, Joski PJ, et al. Extent of Maternal Morbidity in a Managed Care Population in Georgia. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26(6):497. doi:10.1111/J.1365-3016.2012.01318.X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.
    Barkin JL, Bloch JR, Smith KER, et al. Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Perinatal Home Visiting in Women with High-Risk Pregnancies. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2021;66(2):227–232. doi:10.1111/JMWH.13204
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. 73.
    Zertuche AD, Spelke B, Julian Z, Pinto M, Rochat R. Georgia Maternal and Infant Health Research Group (GMIHRG): Mobilizing Allied Health Students and Community Partners to Put Data into Action. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(7):1323–1332. doi:10.1007/S10995-016-1996-Y/FIGURES/3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. 74.
    Kramer MR, Waller LA, Dunlop AL, Hogue CR. Housing Transitions and Low Birth Weight Among Low-Income Women: Longitudinal Study of the Perinatal Consequences of Changing Public Housing Policy. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):2255. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300782
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.
    Jincharadze N, Kazakhashvili N, Sakvarelidze I. PROBLEMS OF IMPROVING ANTENATAL MONITORING OF PREGNANT WOMEN IN THE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN GEORGIA. Georgian Med News. 2018;283(1):118–123.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.
    Jamieson DJ, Haddad LB. What Obstetrician-Gynecologists Should Know About Population Health. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002638
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.
    Alzate M. Welfare recipients’ quality of life: lessons from the United Nations’ Human Development Index for the US welfare policy. European Journal of Social Work. 2006;9(1):85–101. doi:10.1080/13691450500480722
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. 78.
    Lanier P, Kennedy S, Snyder A, et al. Prenatal Syphilis Screening Among Medicaid Enrollees in 6 Southern States. Am J Prev Med. 2022;62(5):770–776. doi:10.1016/J.AMEPRE.2021.11.011
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. 79.
    Crowther S, MacIver E, Lau A. Policy, evidence and practice for post-birth care plans: a scoping review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1). doi:10.1186/S12884-019-2274-Y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.
    Till SR, Everetts D, Haas DM. Incentives for increasing prenatal care use by women in order to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(12). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009916.PUB2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.
    Harron K, Verfuerden M, Ibiebele I, et al. Preterm birth, unplanned hospital contact, and mortality in infants born to teenage mothers in five countries: An administrative data cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020;34(6):645–654. doi:10.1111/PPE.12685
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.
    McInnes RJ, Aitken-Arbuckle A, Lake S, Hollins Martin C, MacArthur J. Implementing continuity of midwife carer – just a friendly face? A realist evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1). doi:10.1186/S12913-020-05159-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.
    Young D, Shields N, Holmes A, Turnbull D, Twaddle S. A new style of midwife-managed antenatal care: costs and satisfaction. Br J Midwifery. 1997;5(9):540–545. doi:10.12968/BJOM.1997.5.9.540
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. 84.
    Pitchforth E, Watson V, Tucker J, et al. Models of intrapartum care and women’s trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. BJOG. 2008;115(5):560–569. doi:10.1111/J.1471-0528.2007.01516.X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  85. 85.
    Pitchforth E, Van Teijlingen E, Watson V, et al. “Choice” and place of delivery: a qualitative study of women in remote and rural Scotland. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009;18(1):42–48. doi:10.1136/QSHC.2007.023572
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.
    McInnes RJ, Martin CJH, MacArthur J. Midwifery continuity of carer: Developing a realist evaluation framework to evaluate the implementation of strategic change in Scotland. Midwifery. 2018;66:103–110. doi:10.1016/J.MIDW.2018.07.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. 87.
    McGuire M, Dagge-Bel F, Purton P, Thompson M. Shaping maternity services in Scotland. 1012968/bjom2004121116687. 2013;12(11):674–678. doi:10.12968/BJOM.2004.12.11.16687
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. 88.
    MacLachlan A, Crawford K, Shinwell S, Nixon C, Henderson M. Recruiting hard-to-reach pregnant women at high psychosocial risk: strategies and costs from a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2021;22(1):1–15. doi:10.1186/S13063-021-05348-9/TABLES/6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.
    Hundley V, Rennie AM, Fitzmaurice A, Graham W, Van Teijlingen E, Penney G. A national survey of women’s views of their maternity care in Scotland. Midwifery. 2000;16(4):303–313. doi:10.1054/midw.2000.0231
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.
    Hundley V, Penney G, Fitzmaurice A, VanTeijlingen E, Graham W. A comparison of data obtained from service providers and service users to assess the quality of maternity care. Midwifery. 2002;18(2):126–135. doi:10.1054/midw.2002.0306
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.
    Frank J, Bromley C, Doi L, et al. Seven key investments for health equity across the lifecourse: Scotland versus the rest of the UK. Soc Sci Med. 2015;140:136–146. doi:10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2015.07.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.
    Cheyne H, Abhyankar P, McCourt C. Empowering change: realist evaluation of a Scottish Government programme to support normal birth. Midwifery. 2013;29(10):1110–1121. doi:10.1016/J.MIDW.2013.07.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.
    Barnett C. WHO Health Promoting Hospitals: Maternity services in Scotland. Br J Midwifery. 2007;15(10):647–649. doi:10.12968/BJOM.2007.15.10.27351
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. 94.
    SMOKING BAN REDUCED PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS, SAYS STUDY. University of Glasgow News. March 2012.
  95. 95.
    Puthussery S. Perinatal outcomes among migrant mothers in the United Kingdom: Is it a matter of biology, behaviour, policy, social determinants or access to health care? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;32:39–49. doi:10.1016/J.BPOBGYN.2015.09.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. 96.
    Turienzo CF, Bick D, Briley AL, et al. Midwifery continuity of care versus standard maternity care for women at increased risk of preterm birth: A hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised controlled pilot trial in the UK. PLoS Med. 2020;17(10). doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003350
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. 97.
    Gale NK, Kenyon S, MacArthur C, Jolly K, Hope L. Synthetic social support: Theorizing lay health worker interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2018;196:96–105. doi:10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2017.11.012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. 98.
    Courtemanche C, Marton J, Ukert B, Yelowitz A, Zapata D. Early Impacts of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage in Medicaid Expansion and Non-Expansion States.
  99. 99.
    Letter from AHA and Other National Organizations to Congressional Leaders on Two Maternal Health Bills. American Hospital Association.
  100. 100.
    Sutton MY, Anachebe NF, Lee R, Skanes H. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Reproductive Health Services and Outcomes, 2020. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021;137(2):225. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004224
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. 101.
    Ranjit A, Jiang W, Zhan T, et al. Intrapartum obstetric care in the United States military: Comparison of military and civilian care systems within TRICARE. Birth. 2017;44(4):337–344. doi:10.1111/BIRT.12298
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. 102.
    Palmer I, Chronicle E. Cognitive processing in migraine: a failure to find facilitation in patients with aura. http://journals.sagepub.com.proxy.library.emory.edu/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1998.1803125.x.
  103. 103.
    Gavin NI, Adams EK, Hartmann KE, Benedict MB, Chireau M. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Pregnancy-Related Health Care Among Medicaid Pregnant Women. Matern Child Health J. 2004;8(3).
  104. 104.
    Stanhope KK, Suglia SF, Hogue CJR, Leon JS, Comeau DL, Kramer MR. Spatial Variation in Very Preterm Birth to Hispanic Women Across the United States: The Role of Intensified Immigration Enforcement. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(Suppl 1):333. doi:10.18865/ED.31.S1.333
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. 105.
    Stanhope KK, Hogue CR, Suglia SF, Leon JS, Kramer MR. Restrictive sub-federal immigration policy climates and very preterm birth risk among US-born and foreign-born Hispanic mothers in the United States, 2005-2016. Health Place. 2019;60. doi:10.1016/J.HEALTHPLACE.2019.102209
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  106. 106.
    Merkt PT, Kramer MR, Goodman DA, et al. Urban-rural differences in pregnancy-related deaths, United States, 2011-2016. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(2):183.e1-183.e16. doi:10.1016/J.AJOG.2021.02.028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. 107.
    Li J, Pesko MF, Unruh MA, Jung HY. Effect of the Medicaid Primary Care Rate Increase on Prenatal Care Utilization Among Medicaid-Insured Women. 2019;23:1564–1572. doi:10.1007/s10995-019-02804-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. 108.
    Kroelinger CD, Okoroh EM, Goodman DA, Lasswell SM, Barfield WD. Comparison of state risk-appropriate neonatal care policies with the 2012 AAP policy statement. Journal of Perinatology. 2018;38:411–420. doi:10.1038/s41372-017-0006-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  109. 109.
    Khan A, DeYoung SE. Maternal health services for refugee populations: Exploration of best practices. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(3):362–374. doi:10.1080/17441692.2018.1516796
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. 110.
    Jackson FM, Rashied-Henry K, Braveman P, et al. A Prematurity Collaborative Birth Equity Consensus Statement for Mothers and Babies. Matern Child Health J. 2020;24(10):1231–1237. doi:10.1007/S10995-020-02960-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. 111.
    Grigorescu VI, D’Angelo D V., Harrison LL, Taraporewalla AJ, Shulman H, Smith RA. Implementation Science and the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. J Womens Health. 2014;23(12):989. doi:10.1089/JWH.2014.5047
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  112. 112.
    Callaghan WM. Geographic variation of reproductive health indicators and outcomes in the United States: place matters. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(3):278. doi:10.1016/J.AJOG.2014.06.043
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  113. 113.
    Bullinger LR, Simon K, Edmonds BT. Coverage Effects of the ACA’s Medicaid Expansion on Adult Reproductive-Aged Women, Postpartum Mothers, and Mothers with Older Children. Matern Child Health J. 2022;26(5):1104–1114. doi:10.1007/S10995-022-03384-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  114. 114.
    Broussard DL, Sappenfield WB, Fussman C, Kroelinger CD, Grigorescu V. Core state preconception health indicators: A voluntary, multi-state selection process. Matern Child Health J. 2011;15(2):158–168. doi:10.1007/S10995-010-0575-X/TABLES/2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  115. 115.
    Barreto T, Li C, Chung YK, Jabbarpour Y, Baltrus P, Gaglioti A. Measuring State-Level Racial Inequity in Severe Maternal Morbidity in the Medicaid Population. Matern Child Health J. 2022;26(4):682–690. doi:10.1007/S10995-021-03192-6/TABLES/4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  116. 116.
    Adams EK, Johnston E. Insuring Women in the United States Before, During, and After Pregnancies. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(4).
Back to top
Posted March 22, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Understanding the impact of antenatal care policies in Georgia (USA) and Scotland (UK): A textual synthesis
J. Shim, V. Burnett, M. Vernon, F. Work, I. Uwaifo, C. Ray, P. Reddi
medRxiv 2024.03.21.24304668; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.21.24304668
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area