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.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organisation, Financing, and Implementation of Preconception Care in Primary Care: Implications for Women's Health and Well-Being.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 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
- Ethical and management dilemmas in the care of the newborn at the limit of viability: a narrative review.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Review
- Knowledge and engagement in health-promoting behaviors among women planning pregnancy: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Article
- Information-seeking behaviours, attitudes and practices on sexual and reproductive health among healthcare providers in Pakistan.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Preconception Care and Genetic Screening: A Global Review and Strategic Perspectives for Implementation in Bulgaria.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Negative Perceptions, Low Knowledge, and Social Stigma as Barriers to Preconception Care in Primary Health Care.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.