Pediction by maternal risk factors and prenatal care of neonatal intensive care of neonatal intensive care admission in a University Hospital, Turkey, a case control study

Abstract

Objective: Determine socioeconomic characteristics, prenatal care and maternal risk factors and to reveal the impact on newborn, in mothers who gave birth.

Materials and Methods: A case-control study comparing the mothers whose babies admitted and whose babies not admitted to neonatal intensive care unit of a University Hospital. 200 women as a case and 200 women as a control chosen among total 958 women. A survey form filled to determine socioeconomic and prenatal care features and the risk factors. The APNCU index is used for adequacy of prenatal care. Chi square test, Fisher’s exact test and multiple logistic regression analysis are used for statistical evaluation.

Results: As to prenatal care 94.3 % of the mothers received adequate amount and 95.2 % adequate content. The location of residence (OR:2.72), husband education (OR:1.97), spontaneous abortion in second trimester or preterm birth history (OR:4.27), multiple pregnancy (OR:5.25), bigger or smaller uterine size (OR:26.58), early uterine contraction (OR:2.21), and problems during delivery (OR:2.53) variables were related to be in neonatal intensive care unit.

Conclusion: Factors related to being in intensive care found in this study should be understood and interpreted in all of the steps of health services, and interventions should be executed when necessary.

Keywords

• Prenatal care,maternal risks; neonatal intensive care

Pediction by maternal risk factors and prenatal care of neonatal intensive

Öz

References

1. Dağoğlu T, Ovalı F. Neonatology. Nobel Publishing, 2007 Ankara.
2. Ross MG, Downey CA, Bemis R, Nguyer M, Jacques DL. Prediction by maternal risk factors of neonatal intensive care admissions: Evaluation of >59.000 women international managed care programs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(4):835-42.
3. Güler Ç, Akın L. Basic knowledge of public health. Hacettepe University Publications, 2006 Ankara.
4. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. Fertility, reproductive health and ageing in Turkey. Turkey demographic and health survey 2008. Advanced analysis study. 2010 Ankara.
5. Galvan J, Woelk GB, Mahomed K, Wagner N, Mudzamiri S, Williams MA. Prenatal care utilization and foetal outcomes at Harare Maternity Hospital, Zimbabwe. Cent Afr J Med. 2001:47(4):87-92.
6. Cox RG, Zhang J, Zotti ME, Graham J. Prenatal care utilization in Mississippi: Racial disparities and implications for unfavorable birth outcomes. Matern Child Health J. 2011;15(7):931-42.
7. Ministry of Health, Safe motherhood, Ministry of Health maternal-child health and family planning general directorate, 2005 Ankara.
8. Ministry of Health, Prenatal care management guidelines. Ministry of Health, maternal-child health and family planning general directorate, United Nations Population Fund, 2009 Ankara.

9. Kotelchuck M. An evaluation of the Kessner adequacy of prenatal care index and a proposed adequacy of prenatal care utilization index. Am J Pub Health 1994;84(9):1414-20.
10. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. Turkey demographic and health survey 2008. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health maternal-child health and family planning general directorate, 2009 Ankara. 12
11. Çiçeklioğlu M, Soyer MT, Ocek ZA (2000). Factors associated with the utilization and content of prenatal care in a western urban district of Turkey. Int J Oval Health Care.2005;17(6):533-9.
12. McCaw Binns A, Winfrey W. Impact of HRP Research in the maternal and perinatal care; a casestudy. WHO, 2008 Geneva.
13. WHO-UNICEF. Antenatal care in developping countries: Promises, achievements and missed oppurtunities: An analysis of trends, levels and differentials. WHO, 2001 Geneva.
14. Stoll BJ. The global impact of neonatal infection. Clin Perinatol, 1997;24(1):21-24.
15. Raatikainer K, Heiskanen N, Heinonen S. Under-attending free antenatal care is associated with solverse pregnancy outcomes. BMC Public Health 2007;7:268.
16. Çöl M, Kıran S, Çalışkan D, Akdur R. Evaluation of prenatal care among women who deliver at a University Hospital. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, 1998;51(2):71-79.
17. Magan EF, Doherty DA, Lutgendorf MA, Magan MI, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC. Peripartum outcomes of high risk pregnancies complicated by olygo-polyhydramnios: A prospective longitudinal study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36(2):268-77.
18. Luke B, Martin JA. The rise in multiple births in the united states: Who, what, when, where and why. Clin Obstet Gynecol.2004;47:118-33.
19. Çiçek N, Akyürek C, Çelik Ç, Haberal A. Obstetrics and Gynecology Information. Güneş Publishing, 2006 Ankara.
20. İşler F. Genetic markers in severe preeclampsia and thrombophilia. Şişli Etfal Education and Training Hospital 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Master thesis.2008 İstanbul.