This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (8)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor.—We wish to clarify some misconceptions in the Editorial¹ accompanying our article on the changing pattern of prenatal care utilization in the United States.² In the Editorial, Drs Misra and Guyer erroneously concluded that women most at risk for poor perinatal outcomes did not have increased utilization. They looked at our logistic models for factors associated with intensive utilization in 1981 and 1995, saw that African American women and women with less education were less likely than white women and women with more education to receive intensive utilization in 1995, and concluded that "2 of the groups that are socially at high risk . . . did not share in the trend toward increased utilization of prenatal care at the intensive levels." In fact, the rates increased markedly for both groups. Intensive utilization increased 40% for women with less education (compared with 55% for women with some . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

The Changing Pattern of Prenatal Care Utilization in the United States, 1981-1995, Using Different Prenatal Care Indices
Michael D. Kogan, Joyce A. Martin, Greg R. Alexander, Milton Kotelchuck, Stephanie J. Ventura, and Fredric D. Frigoletto
JAMA. 1998;279(20):1623-1628.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Benefits and Limitations of Prenatal Care: From Counting Visits to Measuring Content
Dawn P. Misra and Bernard Guyer
JAMA. 1998;279(20):1661-1662.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT