Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38124485›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2024

How, when, and who should ask about pregnancy intentions in primary care? A qualitative study of women's preferences.

Jennifer A Hall, Kira Wilkinson, Claire Haddon, Geraldine Barrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Jennifer A HallUCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, Reproductive Health Research Department, Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Team, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2084-9568
Kira WilkinsonPublic Participant, United Kingdom.
Claire HaddonPublic Participant, United Kingdom.
Geraldine BarrettUCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, Reproductive Health Research Department, Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Team, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9738-1051

Funding

NIHR Advanced Fellowship PDF-2017-10-021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor health services to help people plan for or prevent pregnancy, health professionals need an acceptable way to identify individuals' preferences.

objectiveTo assess women's views on the acceptability of specific questions about pregnancy preferences when asked by health professionals in a variety of primary care contexts.

methodsOne-to-one in-depth interviews with 13 women aged 18-48 from across the UK, involving role-play scenarios and ranking exercises. Interviews covered a range of settings and health professionals, different question wording, and ways of asking (in person or digitally). We conducted a thematic Framework Analysis, focussing on themes relating to feelings and preferences.

resultsWomen were generally open to being asked about pregnancy preferences if they understood the rationale, it was asked in a relevant context, such as in women's health-related consultations, and there was follow-up. After signposting, an open question, such as 'How would you feel about having a baby in the next year?' was preferred in a face-to-face context as it enabled discussion. While some women valued a face-to-face discussion with a health professional, for others the privacy and convenience of a digital option was preferred; methods should be tailored to the target population.

conclusionDiscussion of pregnancy preferences via a range of formats is acceptable to, and valued by, women in the UK across a range of primary care settings. Acceptability to health professionals and feasibility of implementation needs further exploration and would benefit from greater public awareness of the benefits of pregnancy planning.

Indexed as

IntentionWomen's HealthEmotionsFemaleHumansPregnancyPrimary Health CareQualitative Researchcontraceptionpreconception carepregnancy intention screeningprimary carereproductive healthreproductive intentions

Identifiers

PMID38124485
PMCPMC11017777

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.