ArticlePloS one2019
Integrating interconception care in preventive child health care services: The Healthy Pregnancy 4 All program.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decline in and recovery of fertility rates after COVID-19-related state of emergency in Japan.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Building Cross-sectoral Collaborations to Address Perinatal Health Inequities: Insights From the Dutch Healthy Pregnancy 4 All-3 Program.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Facilitators and barriers of preconception care in women with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatic diseases: an explorative survey study in a secondary and tertiary hospital.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Health Agency and Perfectionism: The Case of Perinatal Health Inequalities.Public health ethics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost parents with young children pay routine visits to Well-Baby Clinics, or so-called Preventive Child Health Care (PCHC) services. This offers a unique opportunity to promote and deliver interconception care. This study aimed to integrate such care and perform an implementation evaluation.
methodsIn seven Dutch municipalities, PCHC professionals were instructed to discuss the possibility of an interconception care consultation during each routine six-months well-baby visit. The primary outcome of this study was coverage of the intervention, quantified as the proportion of visits during which women were informed about interconception care. Secondary outcomes included adoption, fidelity, feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability and effectiveness of the intervention, studied by surveying PCHC professionals and women considering becoming pregnant.
resultsThe possibility of interconception care was discussed during 29% (n = 1,849) of all visits, and 60% of the PCHC physicians adopted the promotion of interconception care by regularly informing women. About half of the PCHC professionals and most women judged integration of interconception care in PCHC appropriate and acceptable. Estimated feasibility was poor, since 13% of the professionals judged future integration in daily practice as probable. The uptake of interconception care consultations was low (n = 4 consultations).
conclusionsPromotion of interconception care was achieved in approximately one-third of the routine PCHC consultations and appeared promising with regards to adoption, appropriateness and acceptability. However, concerns on feasibility and uptake of interconception care consultations in daily practice remain. Suggestions for improvement may include further integration of interconception care health promotion in routine PCHC consultations, while allocating sufficient resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.