Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42736864›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Organisation, Financing, and Implementation of Preconception Care in Primary Care: Implications for Women's Health and Well-Being.

Lora Draeva, Eleonora Hristova-Atanasova, Georgi Iskrov, Rumen Stefanov

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Lora DraevaDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Eleonora Hristova-AtanasovaDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.ORCID 0000-0003-0329-6081
Georgi IskrovDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.ORCID 0000-0002-0988-0062
Rumen StefanovDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Preconception care (PCC) is an important component of preventive reproductive healthcare and public health because modifiable risk factors affecting maternal, neonatal, and longer-term health may be present before conception. Despite broad recognition of its potential value, substantial uncertainty remains regarding how PCC should be organised, financed, and implemented across different healthcare systems. (2) Methods: This structured narrative review synthesised evidence on healthcare- provider models, financing, affordability, willingness to pay (WTP), and barriers and facilitators affecting PCC implementation. A structured search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection covered publications from January 2010 to March 2026 and was updated on 14 July 2026. Original research studies, systematic and scoping reviews, narrative reviews, clinical guidelines, policy reports, and relevant methodological or health-economic publications were considered. A structured qualitative appraisal was used to interpret evidence according to study design or evidence type, directness to PCC, healthcare-system context, methodological limitations, and consistency across sources. A total of 61 publications were retained in the structured evidence synthesis. (3) Results: No single PCC delivery model was consistently supported as universally applicable. Across heterogeneous settings, the evidence more consistently supported broad principles including accessibility, continuity of care, multidisciplinary coordination, clear professional roles, financial accessibility, and integration with existing healthcare pathways. Implementation was constrained by insufficient training, consultation-time limitations, unclear professional responsibilities, fragmented service organisation, inadequate reimbursement, and socioeconomic inequalities. Evidence on WTP, specific financing arrangements, and digital delivery models was more limited and context-dependent. (4) Conclusions: The available evidence supports PCC as an important preventive reproductive-health strategy, but the optimal organisational and financing models remain uncertain and are likely to depend on healthcare-system context. Integrated and multidisciplinary approaches appear promising, although specific provider configurations, financing mechanisms, and digital interventions require further comparative and longitudinal evaluation. The author-developed hypothetical conceptual model proposed in this review should therefore be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating synthesis of the available evidence rather than as an empirically validated clinical pathway or causal model.

Indexed as

financinghealthcare providersimplementationnarrative reviewpreconception careprimary carereproductive healthwillingness to paywomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID42736864
PMCPMC13565262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.