Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32381056›Full record

ReviewBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

Defining preconception: exploring the concept of a preconception population.

Briony Hill, Jennifer Hall, Helen Skouteris, Sinéad Currie

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The limits of preconception care for global health.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Sharing the motherload: A review and development of the CO-Parent conceptual model for early childhood obesity prevention.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Briony HillMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia. briony.hill@monash.edu.
Jennifer HallEGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley St, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Helen SkouterisMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
Sinéad CurriePsychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. sinead.currie@stir.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7565-4012

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth prior to conception can significantly impact offspring health, however, a clear definition of the attributes of the preconception population is currently lacking. We aimed to use existing literature to explore the concept and attributes of a preconception population by: [1] identifying characteristics and research recruitment methods; and [2] generating an attribute-based working definition of a preconception population.

methodsA rapid review of current literature using CINAHL and the subject heading 'pre-pregnancy care' was conducted (Stage 1). Data extracted included definitions of preconception, participant inclusion/exclusion criteria, participant characteristics, and recruitment methods. Stage 2 involved a wider search of relevant publications beyond peer-reviewed literature followed by a concept analysis of the phrase "preconception population" applying Walker and Avant's framework (Stage 2).

resultsTwenty-three papers (19 studies) were included in Stage 1. "Preconception" was explicitly defined in one study. Twelve studies specified participants must be planning a pregnancy. Stage 2 included 33 publications. Four key perspectives for the concept of the preconception population were derived: [1] intentional; [2] potential; [3] public health; and [4] life course.

conclusionsAdopting these perspectives may allow researchers to accurately define, identify and recruit preconception populations and to develop interventions that are appropriately broad or tailored depending on population needs. We hope the definitions will facilitate research with this population and will subsequently improve the wellbeing of preconception men and women, which is essential to ensuring the health of future generations.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMalePreconception CarePregnancyYoung AdultPreconceptionPregnancy intentionPregnancy planningPublic health

Identifiers

PMID32381056
PMCPMC7206804

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.