ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
Preconception Health of Indigenous Peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: A Scoping Review.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing recognition of the importance of the preconception period for addressing reproductive and intergenerational health inequities and supporting improved maternal and child health outcomes. This study aimed to understand the extent and type of evidence that exists in relation to preconception health for Indigenous peoples living in high-income countries with similar experiences of colonisation, namely, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.
methodsThis review was conducted as per the JBI methodology and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive search of PubMed, CINAHL [EBSCO], Ovid Embase, Scopus, and the Wiley Cochrane Library was conducted using keywords and index terms. We included research in English published between January 2010 and June 2023 on quantitative and qualitative primary studies. Data were extracted using a standardised tool, and the analysis included quantitative descriptions and qualitative content analysis.
resultsWe identified 360 potential studies and included 57 articles in the review. Most studies were from the United States (n = 36, 63.2%) and Australia (n = 13, 22.8%), and they commonly reported associations between preconception health risk factors and maternal or child health outcomes (n = 27, 48.2%) or described the development, implementation, or evaluation of preconception health interventions (n = 26, 46.4%). Common preconception health areas were pre-pregnancy body mass index or weight (n = 34), alcohol (n = 16), diet (n = 14), physical activity (n = 12), and diabetes (n = 11). Most studies focused exclusively on women (n = 46, 80.7%), and very few included men (n = 3, 5.3%). The study populations were mostly urban and rural (n = 25, 43.9%) or rural only (n = 14, 24.6%); however, the geographical remoteness was often unclear (n = 14, 24.6%).
conclusionsWhile there was some research relating to the preconception health of Indigenous peoples, this review identified considerable research gaps. There is a need for dedicated research into preconception health risk factors and reproductive health outcomes, attitudes and awareness of preconception health, and preconception health interventions for Indigenous peoples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.