Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:50:55.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antenatal Care in Denmark: Assessments of Program, Staff Competence, Compliance, and Outcome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Finn Børlum Kristensen
Finn Børlum Kristensen
Affiliation:
Danish National Board of Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Antenatal care in Denmark is shared between general practitioners, midwives, and hospital departments. A minimum of 9 visits is officially recommended for all pregnant women. In 1987, 80% made 10 or more visits. An inadequate number of visits in relation to recommendations was most frequent in the lowest social group. Risk of stillbirth and neonatal death varied substantially between social groups even after taking account of number of visits made.

Type
The Setting of the Problem
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Supplement S1 , January 1992 , pp. 25 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Andersen, E. B.Multiplicative Poisson models with unequal cell rates.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 1977, 4, 153–58.Google Scholar
2.Chalmers, I.Evaluating the effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth. In Chalmers, I., Enkin, M., & Keirse, M.J.N.C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1989, 3–38.Google Scholar
3.Committee to study the prevention of low birth weight. Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine. Preventing low birth weight. Washington, DC: Nation Academy Press, 1985, 132–47.Google Scholar
4.Gortmaker, S. L.The effects of prenatal care upon the health of the newborn. American Journal of Public Health, 1979, 69, 653–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Harris, J. E.Prenatal medical care and infant mortality. In Fuchs, V. R. (ed.), Economic aspects of health. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982, 15–52.Google Scholar
6.Kessner, D. M.Singer, J., Kalk, C. E. & Schlesinger, E. R. Infant death: An analysis by maternal risk and health care. Contrast in health status, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, 1973.Google Scholar
7.Knudsen, J. L.Planning of antenatal care -Description and analysis. Copenhagen: Danish Hospital Institute, 1989.Google Scholar
8.Knudsen, L. B. & Kristensen, F. B.Monitoring perinatal mortality and perinatal care with a national register: Content and usage of the Danish Medical Birth Register. Community Medicine, 1986, 8, 29–36.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Knudsen, L. B., Mac, F, & Kristensen, F. B.Utilization of prophylactic consultations in antenatal care in Denmark 1987. Ugeskrift for Lasger, 1988, 150, 2828–29.Google Scholar
10.Kristensen, F. B. Evaluation of antenatal care. Epidemiologic study of pregnant women's initiation of antenatal care through general practice and its association with birth weight and gestational age. Thesis. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 1987.Google Scholar
11.Kristensen, F. B., Andersen, K. V., Andersen, A. N., et al. The professional backgrounds of doctors and midwives providing antenatal care. Training, supervision and postgraduate education. Ugeskrift for Læger, 1989, 151, 3308–11.Google Scholar
12.National Board of Health. Directions on antenatal care and maternity care. Copenhagen: National Board of Health, 1985.Google Scholar
13.Osborn, J.A multiplicative model for the analysis o f vital statistics rates. Applied Statistics, 1975, 24, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Quick, S. D., Greenlick, M. C., & Roghmann, N. B.Prenatal care and pregnancy outcome in a HMO and general population: A multivariate cohort analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 1981, 71, 381–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar