Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25058333›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

How do women prepare for pregnancy? Preconception experiences of women attending antenatal services and views of health professionals.

Judith Stephenson, Dilisha Patel, Geraldine Barrett, Beth Howden, Andrew Copas, Obiamaka Ojukwu, Pranav Pandya, Jill Shawe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Understanding Preferences for Preconception Care in Australia: Insights From a Discrete Choice Experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Judith StephensonReproductive Medicine, Institute of Women's Health, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Dilisha PatelReproductive Medicine, Institute of Women's Health, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Geraldine BarrettHealth Sciences and Social Care, Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom.
Beth HowdenReproductive Medicine, Institute of Women's Health, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew CopasInfection & Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Obiamaka OjukwuReproductive Medicine, Institute of Women's Health, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Pranav PandyaUniversity College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom.
Jill ShaweReproductive Medicine, Institute of Women's Health, UCL, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MAIN

objectiveTo determine the extent to which women plan and prepare for pregnancy.

methodsCross-sectional questionnaire survey of pregnant women attending three maternity services in London about knowledge and uptake of preconception care; including a robust measure of pregnancy planning, and phone interviews with a range of health care professionals. MAIN

resultsWe recruited 1173/1288 (90%) women, median age of 32 years. 73% had clearly planned their pregnancy, 24% were ambivalent and only 3% of pregnancies were unplanned. 51% of all women and 63% of those with a planned pregnancy took folic acid before pregnancy. 21% of all women reported smoking and 61% reported drinking alcohol in the 3 months before pregnancy; 48% of smokers and 41% of drinkers reduced or stopped before pregnancy. The 51% of all women who reported advice from a health professional before becoming pregnant were more likely to adopt healthier behaviours before pregnancy [adjusted odds ratios for greatest health professional input compared with none were 2.34 (95% confidence interval 1.54-3.54) for taking folic acid and 2.18 (95% CI 1.42-3.36) for adopting a healthier diet before pregnancy]. Interviews with 20 health professionals indicated low awareness of preconception health issues, missed opportunities and confusion about responsibility for delivery of preconception care. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

findingsDespite a high level of pregnancy planning, awareness of preconception health among women and health professionals is low, and responsibility for providing preconception care is unclear. However, many women are motivated to adopt healthier behaviours in the preconception period, as indicated by halving of reported smoking rates in this study. The link between health professional input and healthy behaviour change before pregnancy is a new finding that should invigorate strategies to improve awareness and uptake of pre-pregnancy health care, and bring wider benefits for public health.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth OccupationsMaternal Health ServicesPreconception CareAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansPerceptionPregnancyPrenatal CareSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkforceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25058333
PMCPMC4109981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.