Clinics in Mother and Child Health

Assessing the Impact of Prenatal and Newborn Diagnostic Evaluations on Antenatal Care

Jeremy Patricia^* Department of Public Health, University of Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany
^*Correspondence: Jeremy Patricia, Department of Public Health, University of Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany, Email:

Received: 30-Jan-2024, Manuscript No. CMCH-24-25036; Editor assigned: 01-Feb-2024, Pre QC No. CMCH-24-25036(PQ); Reviewed: 15-Feb-2024, QC No. CMCH-24-25036; Revised: 22-Feb-2024, Manuscript No. CMCH-24-25036(R); Published: 29-Feb-2024, DOI: 10.35248/2090-7214.24.S22.002

Description

Antenatal Care (ANC) is a vital service for pregnant women and their newborns, as it provides health promotion, disease prevention, and early diagnosis and treatment of pregnancyrelated complications. However, the quality of ANC varies widely across different settings and depends on various factors, such as the availability and utilization of prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations [1,2]. These evaluations include screenings, tests, and scans that can detect and monitor the health status of the mother and the fetus, and identify any potential risks or abnormalities that may require further intervention. Prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations can have a significant impact on the quality and outcomes of ANC, as they can inform and guide the clinical decisions and actions of health care providers and pregnant women. For example, prenatal screening for infections, such as syphilis, HIV, and hepatitis B, can prevent adverse outcomes, such as congenital anomalies, stillbirth, and neonatal death, by enabling timely diagnosis and treatment. Similarly, ultrasound scanning can improve the accuracy of gestational age estimation, fetal growth assessment, and detection of multiple pregnancies, which can reduce the risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, and perinatal mortality. Moreover, prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations can enhance the satisfaction, knowledge, and empowerment of pregnant women and their families, by providing them with information, reassurance, and involvement in their care [3-6].

However, the availability and accessibility of prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations are often limited by various barriers, such as cost, distance, infrastructure, equipment, human resources, and policies. For instance, in low- and middleincome countries, where the majority of maternal and neonatal deaths occur, only 51% of pregnant women receive at least one ultrasound scan, and only 34% receive the recommended minimum of eight ANC contacts, which include essential screenings and tests. Furthermore, the quality and effectiveness of prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations depend on the adherence to evidence-based guidelines and protocols, the competence and skills of health care providers, and the communication and counseling of pregnant women and their families [7,8]. Therefore, assessing the impact of prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations on ANC requires a comprehensive and holistic approach, that considers the input, process, and output factors that influence the quality and outcomes of ANC. Input factors include the availability and adequacy of resources, such as equipment, supplies, staff, and facilities, that enable the provision of prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations. Process factors include the utilization and appropriateness of services, such as the number, timing, and content of ANC contacts, and the adherence to guidelines and standards for prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations. Output factors include the effects and outcomes of services, such as the maternal and fetal health status, the satisfaction and knowledge of pregnant women and their families, and the health system performance and efficiency [9,10]. By measuring and analysing these factors, the impact of prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations on ANC can be evaluated and improved, to ensure that pregnant women and their newborns receive the best possible health outcomes.

Conclusion

Prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations can also help to detect and manage fetal anomalies, such as congenital heart defects, neural tube defects, and chromosomal abnormalities, which may require specialized care or intervention before or after birth. Prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations can also have ethical, social, and psychological implications for pregnant women and their families, as they may face difficult decisions or dilemmas regarding the continuation or termination of pregnancy, the acceptance or rejection of treatment options, and the coping or adjustment to the diagnosis. Prenatal and newborn diagnostic evaluations can also have an impact on the health system and the society, as they may affect the allocation of resources, the quality of care, the health equity, and the health policy.

References

1. WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551-558.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Fleck M, Louzada S, Xavier M, Chachamovich E, Vieira G, Santos L, et al. Application of the Portuguese version of the abbreviated instrument of quality life WHOQOL-bref. Rev Saúde Pública. 2000;34 (2):178-183.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Biaggio A, Natalicio LF, Spielberger CD. Desenvolvimento da forma experimental em português do Inventário de Ansiedade Traço-Estado (IDATE). Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia Aplicada. 1977;29(3):33-44.

   [Google Scholar]

4. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto. 1970.

   [Google Scholar]

5. Reyes LM, García RG, Ruiz SL, Camacho PA, Ospina MB, Aroca G, et al. Risk factors for preeclampsia in women from Colombia: A case-control study. PloS One. 2012;7(7):e41622.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. D'Souza LS, Josin J. Strengthening the healthcare services to prevent severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. 2014;1(2).

   [Google Scholar]

7. Nakimuli A, Chazara O, Byamugisha J, Elliott AM, Kaleebu P, Mirembe F, et al. Pregnancy, parturition and preeclampsia in women of African ancestry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(6):510-520.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. English FA, Kenny LC, McCarthy FP. Risk factors and effective management of preeclampsia. Integr Blood Press Control. 2015:7-12.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

9. Berzan E, Doyle R, Brown CM. Treatment of preeclampsia: Current approach and future perspectives. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2014;16(9):1-6.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

10. Olaoye T, Oyerinde OO, Elebuji OJ, Ologun O. Knowledge, perception and management of pre-eclampsia among health care providers in a maternity hospital. Int J MCH AIDS. 2019;8(2):80-88.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]