Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38832251›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2024

Implementation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in routine antenatal care: A mixed-methods evaluation in three London NHS Trusts.

Jennifer A Hall, Catherine Stewart, Bryony Stoneman, Tamsin Bicknell, Holly Lovell, Helen Duncan, Judith Stephenson, Geraldine Barrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of midwifery, 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. What Does 'Preconception Health' Mean to People? A Public Consultation on Awareness and Use of Language.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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.

Jennifer A HallFaculty of Population Health Sciences, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine StewartFaculty of Population Health Sciences, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Bryony StonemanWomen's Health Department, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Tamsin BicknellMaternity Department, Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Holly LovellWomen's Health Department, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Helen DuncanDepartment for Health and Social Care, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London, United Kingdom.
Judith StephensonFaculty of Population Health Sciences, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Geraldine BarrettFaculty of Population Health Sciences, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnplanned pregnancies are associated with increased risks. Despite this, they are currently not routinely detected during antenatal care. This study evaluates the implementation of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) - a validated measure of pregnancy planning - into antenatal care at University College London Hospital, Homerton Hospital, and St Thomas' Hospital, England, 2019-2023.

methodsWe conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the pilot. Uptake and acceptability were measured using anonymized data with non-completion of the LMUP as a proxy measure of acceptability overall. We conducted focus groups with midwives, and one-to-one interviews with women, to explore their thoughts of asking, or being asked the LMUP, which we analyzed with a Framework Analysis.

resultsAsking the LMUP at antenatal appointments is feasible and acceptable to women and midwives, and the LMUP performed as expected. Advantages of asking the LMUP, highlighted by participants, include providing additional support and personalizing care. Midwives' concerns about judgment were unsubstantiated; women with unplanned pregnancies valued such discussions.

conclusionsThese findings support the implementation of the LMUP in routine antenatal care and show how it can provide valuable insights into the circumstances of women's pregnancies. This can be used to help midwives personalize care, and potentially reduce adverse outcomes and subsequent unplanned pregnancy. Integration of the LMUP into the Maternity Services Data Set will establish national data collection of a validated measure of unplanned pregnancy and enable analysis of the prevalence, factors, and implications of unplanned pregnancies across subpopulations and over time to inform implementation.

Indexed as

evaluationimplementationLondon Measure of Unplanned Pregnancysurveillanceunplanned pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38832251
PMCPMC11145722

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.