Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34085623›Full record

ReviewJournal of developmental origins of health and disease2022

Characterising and monitoring preconception health in England: a review of national population-level indicators and core data sources.

Danielle A J M Schoenaker, Judith Stephenson, Anne Connolly, Sally Shillaker, Sarah Fishburn, Mary Barker, Keith M Godfrey, Nisreen A Alwan, UK Preconception Partnership

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of developmental origins of health and disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patient preferences and choices as a reflection of trust-A cluster analysis comparing postsurgical perceptions in a private and a public hospital.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Danielle A J M SchoenakerSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7652-990X
Judith StephensonElizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Anne ConnollyBevan Healthcare, Bradford, UK.
Sally ShillakerAcademy of Research and Improvement, Solent NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Sarah FishburnSouth East Clinical Delivery and Networks, NHS England and Improvement, Oxford, UK.
Mary BarkerNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Keith M GodfreyNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Nisreen A AlwanSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
UK Preconception Partnership
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBNHS EnglandSolent NHS Trust · GBUniversity College Hospital · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/15/17/3174British Heart Foundation RG/15/17/31749Department of Health 17/63/154Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-20004Department of Health NF-SI-0515-10042Medical Research Council G0400491Medical Research Council MC_PC_21000Medical Research Council MC_PC_21001Medical Research Council MC_PC_21003Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical Research Council MC_U147585827Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1015Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/4Medical Research Council MR/N011848/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Initiatives to optimise preconception health are emerging following growing recognition that this may improve the health and well-being of women and men of reproductive age and optimise health in their children. To inform and evaluate such initiatives, guidance is required on indicators that describe and monitor population-level preconception health. We searched relevant databases and websites (March 2021) to identify national and international preconception guidelines, recommendations and policy reports. These were reviewed to identify preconception indicators. Indicators were aligned with a measure describing the prevalence of the indicator as recorded in national population-based data sources in England. From 22 documents reviewed, we identified 66 indicators across 12 domains. Domains included wider (social/economic) determinants of health; health care; reproductive health and family planning; health behaviours; environmental exposures; cervical screening; immunisation and infections; mental health, physical health; medication and genetic risk. Sixty-five of the 66 indicators were reported in at least one national routine health data set, survey or cohort study. A measure of preconception health assessment and care was not identified in any current national data source. Perspectives from three (healthcare) professionals described how indicator assessment and monitoring may influence patient care and inform awareness campaign development. This review forms the foundation for developing a national surveillance system for preconception health in England. The identified indicators can be assessed using national data sources to determine the population's preconception needs, improve patient care, inform and evaluate new campaigns and interventions and enhance accountability from responsible agencies to improve preconception health.

Indexed as

Preconception CareUterine Cervical NeoplasmsChildCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMalePregnancyindicatorsPreconceptionreproductive healthsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID34085623
PMCPMC7612507
OpenAlexW3163741326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.