Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36079880›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

Acceptability of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in Preconception and Early Pregnancy to Assess Nutritional Status and Prevent Excess Gestational Weight Gain: A Study of Women and Healthcare Practitioners in the UK.

Chandni Maria Jacob, Hazel M Inskip, Wendy Lawrence, Carmel McGrath, Fionnuala M McAuliffe, Sarah Louise Killeen, Hema Divakar, Mark Hanson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Artificial intelligence for personalized multiple micronutrient supplementation in maternal health.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. 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

8 authors.

Chandni Maria JacobInstitute of Developmental Sciences, School of Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2024-0074
Hazel M InskipMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
Wendy LawrenceNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
Carmel McGrathNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7777-2904
Fionnuala M McAuliffeUCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-3477-6494
Sarah Louise KilleenUCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland.
Hema DivakarDivakar's Specialty Hospital, Bengaluru 560078, India.
Mark HansonInstitute of Developmental Sciences, School of Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/15/17/31749European Union's Horizon 2020 LifeCycle Project 733206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimum nutrition and weight before and during pregnancy are associated with a lower risk of conditions such as pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes. There is a lack of user-friendly tools in most clinical settings to support healthcare practitioners (HCPs) in implementing them. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of (1) using a nutrition checklist designed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) for nutritional screening of women in the preconception and early pregnancy period and (2) routine discussion of nutrition and weight in clinical care. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with women (aged 18-45) and HCPs (e.g., general practitioners, obstetricians, and midwives). Quantitative statistical analysis and qualitative content analysis were performed. The concept and content of the checklist were acceptable to women (

Indexed as

ChecklistGestational Weight GainCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentPregnancyUnited KingdomWeight Gaingestational weight gainnon-communicable diseasesnutritionnutrition counsellingobesityperson-centered carepreconceptionpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36079880
PMCPMC9460608

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.