Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28061818›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Perspectives, preferences and needs regarding early prediction of preeclampsia in Dutch pregnant women: a qualitative study.

Neeltje M T H Crombag, Marije Lamain-de Ruiter, Anneke Kwee, Peter C J I Schielen, Jozien M Bensing, Gerard H A Visser, Arie Franx, Maria P H Koster

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Neeltje M T H CrombagDepartment of Obstetrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room KE04.123.1, P.O. Box 85090, 3508AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands. N.Crombag@umcutrecht.nl.
Marije Lamain-de RuiterDepartment of Obstetrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room KE04.123.1, P.O. Box 85090, 3508AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anneke KweeDepartment of Obstetrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room KE04.123.1, P.O. Box 85090, 3508AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter C J I SchielenCentre for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Jozien M BensingFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gerard H A VisserDepartment of Obstetrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room KE04.123.1, P.O. Box 85090, 3508AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arie FranxDepartment of Obstetrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room KE04.123.1, P.O. Box 85090, 3508AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maria P H KosterDepartment of Obstetrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room KE04.123.1, P.O. Box 85090, 3508AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve early risk-identification in pregnancy, research on prediction models for common pregnancy complications is ongoing. Therefore, it was the aim of this study to explore pregnant women's perceptions, preferences and needs regarding prediction models for first trimester screening for common pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, to support future implementation.

methodTen focus groups (of which five with primiparous and five with multiparous women) were conducted (n = 45). Six focus groups were conducted in urban regions and four in rural regions. All focus group discussions were audio taped and NVIVO was used in order to facilitate the thematic analysis conducted by the researchers.

resultsWomen in this study had a positive attitude towards first trimester screening for preeclampsia using prediction models. Reassurance when determined as low-risk was a major need for using the test. Self-monitoring, early recognition and intensive monitoring were considered benefits of using prediction models in case of a high-risk. Women acknowledged that high-risk determination could cause (unnecessary) anxiety, but it was expected that personal and professional interventions would level out this anxiety.

conclusionWomen in this study had positive attitudes towards preeclampsia screening. Self-monitoring, together with increased alertness of healthcare professionals, would enable them to take active actions to improve pregnancy outcomes. This attitude enhances the opportunities for prevention, early recognition and treatment of preeclampsia and probably other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthPatient PreferenceAdultDecision Support TechniquesEarly DiagnosisFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMass ScreeningNetherlandsParityPre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentAttitudesNeedPreeclampsiaPreferencesQualitative researchScreening

Identifiers

PMID28061818
PMCPMC5219667
OpenAlexW2567762957

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.