Method:In total 155 women in an intervention group attempted to restrict gestational weight gain to less than 7 kg. The control group was comprised of 193 women.Mean costs during pregnancy, delivery and the neonatal period were compared with costs of standard care. Costs converted from Swedish Crowns (SEK) to EURO. Results:The health care cost during pregnancy was lower in the intervention group.There was no significant difference in total health care costs; that is, the sum of costs during pregnancy, delivery and the neonatal period between the intervention group and the control group. Within the intervention group the subgroup that gained 4.5 -9.5 kg had the lowest costs. The total cost, including the intervention costs, was EURO 1283 more per woman/infant in the intervention group compared to the control group (p=0.025). The degree of obesity at inclusion to the program had no bearing on the outcome. Conclusions:The weight gain restriction program for obese pregnant women was effective in restricting gestational weight gain to less than 7 kg but had a higher total cost compared to the control group.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a weight-gain restriction programme for obese pregnant women on sickness absence days and pregnancy benefit days during pregnancy and postpartum.DesignA prospective, controlled intervention study. The Swedish Social Security Agency's records were utilized to compile sickness absence and pregnancy benefit information.SettingAntenatal care clinics in the south-east of Sweden.SubjectsOne hundred fifty-five obese pregnant women who participated in a weight restriction program with weekly structured motivational and behavioural talks combined with aqua-aerobics during pregnancy. A total of 193 obese pregnant women with no intervention served as controls.Main outcome measuresSickness absence benefits and pregnancy benefits expressed as a percentage.ResultsOn average women in the intervention group had 76.68 total full days of sickness absence benefit compared with 53.09days in the control group. Total full days of pregnancy benefits were 39.66% days and 41.41% for the intervention and control groups respectively. For the women who were on sick leave there were no differences between the groups in the amount of days taken.ConclusionsGiven the complexity of factors that have an influence on sickness absence leave, it is possible that programmes that do not address the influence of social aspects and attitudes towards sickness absence have limited effect.