Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40121446›Full record

Observational studyBMC public health2025

Pre-pregnancy care in general practice in England: cross-sectional observational study using administrative routine health data.

Yangmei Li, Jennifer J Kurinczuk, Fiona Alderdice, Maria A Quigley, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Julia Sanders, Sara Kenyon, Dimitrios Siassakos, Nikesh Parekh, Suresha De Almeida and 1 more

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Yonder: Urgent care triage, pre-pregnancy care, heatThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    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

11 authors.

Yangmei LiNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. yangmei.li@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5042-1151
Jennifer J KurinczukNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Fiona AlderdiceNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Maria A QuigleyNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Oliver Rivero-AriasNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Julia SandersSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Sara KenyonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Dimitrios SiassakosEGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nikesh ParekhPublic Health and Wellbeing, Royal Borough of Greenwich, London, UK.
Suresha De AlmeidaNHS South West London CCG, London, UK.
Claire CarsonNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research grant 970014National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme PR-PRU-1217-21202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimising women's pre-pregnancy health is a policy priority for benefits spanning pregnancy and throughout the mother and baby's life. In the UK pre-pregnancy care (PPC) tends to be delivered in primary care, with the onus on women to seek services. We aimed to describe women's engagement with General Practice (GP) in the year preceding pregnancy, including specific PPC; to explore whether women with recognised risk factors for poor pregnancy outcomes receive targeted care.

methodsData for women aged 18-48yrs and registered for

resultsOf 193,578 women included, 14,326 had a confirmed pregnancy. 7.6% of the pregnant women had records indicating specific PPC in the preceding year, whilst 41.0% had records of health promotion (advice on nutrition, smoking, weight, alcohol and contraception). More women with pre-existing medical conditions received health promotion (46.0%-83.9% for various risk groups), although the levels of PPC remained low (4.7%-14.9%).

conclusionsPPC was rarely recorded, likely reflecting low levels of consultation for, or discussion of, pregnancy planning. This represents a missed opportunity for maximising women's health, particularly in those with recognised risk factors for poor pregnancy, perinatal and longer-term outcomes.

Indexed as

General PracticePreconception CareAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRisk FactorsRoutinely Collected Health DataYoung AdultGeneral practiceGeneral practitionersHealth promotionPreconception carePrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID40121446
PMCPMC11929985

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.