Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32656692›Full record

Trial reportMaternal and child health journal2020

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of an Interconception Intervention Provided by Public Health Nurses.

Saranyah Ravindran, Shaira Yoganathan, Zoe F Cairncross, Cindy-Lee Dennis, Joanne Enders, Lisa Graves, Catriona Mill, Deanna Telner, Hilary K Brown

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Maternal and child health journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rural maternal health interventions: A scoping review and implications for best practices.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Saranyah RavindranDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shaira YoganathanInterdisciplinary Centre for Health & Society, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Zoe F CairncrossDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Cindy-Lee DennisWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joanne EndersOntario Public Health Association, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lisa GravesDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.
Catriona MillOntario Public Health Association, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Deanna TelnerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Hilary K BrownDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. hk.brown@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8690-5841
University of Toronto · CACanadian Public Health Association · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAToronto Public Health · CAWestern Michigan University · USWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPreconception health impacts perinatal outcomes, but the difficulty in engaging reproductive-aged individuals in health promotion activities is a barrier to effective implementation of preconception interventions. Since most women have more than one pregnancy and many risk factors repeat across pregnancies, the time between pregnancies-the interconception period-may be an opportune time to improve health. Our objective was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of an interconception intervention delivered by public health nurses.

methodsWe conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial in three small urban and rural public health units in Ontario, Canada, in 2017-2018 among women who were ≥ 18 years of age and between 2 and 12 months postpartum after a first birth. Women randomly allocated to the intervention group received a preconception risk assessment, tailored health education, and referral for clinical follow-up as needed, while those in the control group received standard care. Primary outcomes were intervention feasibility, adherence, and acceptability.

resultsOf 66 eligible women, 61% agreed to participate and were randomized to the intervention (n = 16) or control (n = 24) groups. The follow-up rate was 78% at 1 month and 71% at 3 months. Most women (83%) were satisfied with the intervention, including the number and length of sessions and content of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Results demonstrate the potential feasibility and acceptability of an interconception intervention delivered in a public health setting. The short- and long-term impacts of the intervention on knowledge, behavior, and health should be tested in a larger sample.

Indexed as

Health EducationNurses, Public HealthPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultFemaleHealth PromotionHumansOntarioOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePilot ProjectsPreconception CarePregnancyReproductive HealthRural Health ServicesUrban Health ServicesWomen's HealthPostpartum periodPreconception careReproductive healthWomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID32656692
OpenAlexW3042075808

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.