ArticlePloS one2024
Developing consensus on priorities for preconception care in the general practice setting in the UK: Study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What do we mean by preconception health and preconception care in research and policy? A systematic review.Human reproduction update · 2026Pooled it
- Preconception Interventions in Women at High Risk of Developing Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Pooled it
- Premarital Preventive Examinations and Access to Genetic Counselling in the South-Central Region of Bulgaria: Implications for Preconception and Child Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The long-term general practice healthcare of women with a history of gestational diabetes: A Scoping Review Protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreconception medical, behavioural and socioeconomic risk factors are common among people of reproductive age and can impact pregnancy and offspring outcomes. In line with clinical guidance, primary care practitioners are encouraged to support patients to manage and optimise their health prior to pregnancy. Due to barriers, including lack of time and resources, this support is not currently part of routine practice.
aimAs a first step towards the co-development of practical and realistic best practice guidance, this study aims to achieve consensus on a list of priority risk factors that can be used in general practice to guide opportunistic preconception care for patients of reproductive age.
methodsThis study protocol was developed with a Public Advisory Group of people of reproductive age, researchers and primary care practitioners. The consensus study will consist of three steps: 1) identifying an initial long-list of candidate risk factors and defining principles for scoring the importance of each risk factor, through a literature review, workshops with people of reproductive age, and interviews with primary care practitioners; 2) stakeholder participant prioritisation of each candidate risk factor for its importance for preconception care through a three-round eDelphi survey; and 3) agreeing on the final priority list through consensus meetings with a selected group of stakeholders. Participants living in the UK will be recruited across two stakeholder groups: people of reproductive age (through the Public Advisory Group and charities) and primary care professionals (through professional organisations). ETHICAL APPROVAL: This study has been approved by the University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee (ERGO 83699 and 92950). DISSEMINATION: All study findings will be shared through stakeholder participants, peer-reviewed publication, lay summary, meetings and conference presentations, and relevant professional and community organisations. Ongoing research will inform implementation of the priority list in clinical practice.
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.