Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40578880›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Understanding preconception care: a scoping review of knowledge, attitudes and practices among reproductive age individuals, healthcare workers and stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries.

Yared Asmare Aynalem, Pauline Paul, Janice Y Kung, Amber Hussain, Zohra Lassi, Salima Meherali

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

6 authors.

Yared Asmare AynalemFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada aynalem@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3005-2296
Pauline PaulFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7535-6250
Janice Y KungJohn W Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8676-8675
Amber HussainFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0353-1117
Zohra LassiSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5350-6334
Salima MeheraliFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8132-8600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis scoping review aims to map existing evidence on knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) and barriers to preconception care in low- and middle-income countries. The primary objective is to identify key gaps and research priorities to guide future efforts to improve maternal and child health.

designThis review followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, with a comprehensive search across Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies included original research on preconception care (PCC), KAP in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) without date restrictions. Two independent reviewers conducted screening in Covidence. Findings were presented in graphical, tabular and narrative formats, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) standard.

settingThe review focused on PCC studies conducted in LMICs across various healthcare settings, emphasising primary and secondary levels of care. The geographical scope was global but limited to LMICs as defined by World Bank criteria.

resultA total of 62 studies were included in the review. Of these, 42 employed quantitative methods, 18 used qualitative approaches and 2 used a mixed-methods design. Regarding focus areas, 25 studies assessed knowledge, 14 assessed practices, 12 studies assessed KAP comprehensively and 10 assessed attitudes. Participants were mainly women of reproductive age (44 studies), with only five studies including men. Among healthcare providers, KAP varied, with midwives being the most frequently studied group. Stakeholders such as policymakers were notably under-represented. Identified barriers included limited training, cultural beliefs and inadequate policies. Facilitators highlighted were targeted education, spousal support and policy advocacy, emphasising the need for gender-sensitive and systemic interventions.

conclusionLMICs face complex challenges in utilising PCC, influenced by socioeconomic, cultural, and healthcare system factors. To address these challenges, nuanced approaches incorporating intersectional perspectives and practical qualitative methodologies are essential for improving couples' and child health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) on December 23, 2022, with DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H3MK6.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelPreconception CareFemaleHumansPregnancyAttitudeNursesOBSTETRICSPregnancyPrimary Health CarePUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID40578880
PMCPMC12207119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.