Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29120310›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2017

Preconception health interventions delivered in public health and community settings: A systematic review.

Hilary K Brown, Melissa Mueller, Sarah Edwards, Catriona Mill, Joanne Enders, Lisa Graves, Deanna Telner, Cindy-Lee Dennis

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effectiveness of preconception interventions in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Hilary K BrownInterdisciplinary Centre for Health & Society, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON. hk.brown@utoronto.ca.
Melissa Mueller
Sarah Edwards
Catriona Mill
Joanne Enders
Lisa Graves
Deanna Telner
Cindy-Lee Dennis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of preconception health interventions, delivered to individuals of reproductive age in public health and community settings, on reproductive, maternal, and child health outcomes.

methodsA search of Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus, Gender Studies Database, and SocINDEX from July 1999 through July 2016 was performed. We included studies that reported original data, used an interventional study design, included reproductive-aged women or men, were written in English, and were published in peer-reviewed journals. Two reviewers independently used standardized instruments for data extraction and quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was performed. SYNTHESIS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental, pre-post, and time-series designs. Most studies were conducted in the United States; all but one study included only women. Interventions were mainly educational initiatives focused on nutrition, immunization, and lifestyle behaviours and were delivered in a single contact. The studies reported positive effects on health knowledge (n = 9), behaviour change (n = 4), and health outcomes (n = 1). Study quality was weak (n = 11) or moderate (n = 1), with limitations related to selection bias, blinding, data collection methods, and participant attrition.

conclusionTo develop a comprehensive, standardized approach to preconception health promotion and care in Canada, there is a clear need for high-quality research evaluating the effectiveness of preconception health interventions. Studies should use a health equity lens that includes all individuals of reproductive age and addresses the broad determinants of preconception health.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesHealth PromotionPreconception CarePublic HealthCanadaDelivery of Health CareHumansProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29120310
PMCPMC6972093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.