Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28220337›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017

One Key Question

Deborah Allen, Michele Stranger Hunter, Susan Wood, Tishra Beeson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03947788 (One Key Question-System Team Patient), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT03947788 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

One Key Question-System Team Patient: A Pilot Study Phase II

TypeinterventionalSponsorEndeavor HealthRan2019 to 2021Enrolled143ConditionsReproductive HealthArmsOKQ Training Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical practice guideline "preconception care".Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The limits of preconception care for global health.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Deborah AllenChild, Adolescent and Family Health, Boston Public Health Commission, 1010 Massachusetts Ave #2, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. dallen@bphc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-6825-0503
Michele Stranger HunterOregon Foundation for Reproductive Health, P.O. Box 40472, Portland, OR, 97240, USA.
Susan WoodDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health Services, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20052, USA.
Tishra BeesonDepartment of Health, Educational Administration, and Movement Studies, Central Washington University, 400 E University Way, Ellensburg, WA, 98926, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives Preconceptional health care is increasingly recognized as important to promotion of healthy birth outcomes. Preconceptional care offers an opportunity to influence pregnancy timing and intent and mother's health status prior to conception, all predictors of individual outcomes and of inequality in birth outcomes based on race, ethnicity and class. Methods One Key Question, a promising practice developed in Oregon which is now attracting national interest, provides an entry point into preconceptional care by calling on providers to screen for pregnancy intent in well woman and chronic disease care for women of reproductive age. For women who choose not to become pregnant or are not definitive in their pregnancy intent, One Key Question provides an opportunity for provision of or referral to counseling and contraceptive care. Results Adoption of One Key Question and preconceptional care as standard practices will require important shifts in medical practice challenging the longstanding schism between well woman care generally and reproductive care in particular. Adoption will also require shifts in cultural norms which define the onset of pregnancy as the appropriate starting point for attention to infant health. Conclusions for Practice This commentary reviews the case for preconceptional care, presents the rationale for One Key Question as a strategy for linking primary care to preconceptional and/or contraceptive care for women, outlines what is entailed in implementation of One Key Question in a health care setting, and suggests ways to build community support for preconceptional health.

Indexed as

IntentionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansPreconception CarePregnancyPrenatal CarePrimary Health CareProgram DevelopmentReproductive HealthWomenFamily planningOne Key Question©Preconceptional healthWell woman care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.