ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998
Preconception care: who needs it, who wants it, and how should it be provided?
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- What do we mean by preconception health and preconception care in research and policy? A systematic review.Human reproduction update · 2026Pooled it
- Routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Acceptability and feasibility of a planned preconception weight loss intervention in women with long-acting reversible contraception: the Plan-it mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Article
- Women's knowledge, attitudes and views of preconception health and intervention delivery methods: a cross-sectional survey.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of preconception care interventions in primary care: a systematic review protocol.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Informing the development and uptake of a weight management intervention for preconception: a mixed-methods investigation of patient and provider perceptions.BMC obesity · 2017Article
- General practitioners' knowledge, attitudes and views of providing preconception care: a qualitative investigation.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2016Article
- Article
- Preconception healthcare delivery at a population level: construction of public health models of preconception care.Maternal and child health journal · 2014Review
- Preconceptional care: a systematic review of the current situation and recommendations for the future.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2013Article
- Article
- Preconception healthcare: what women know and believe.Maternal and child health journal · 2006Article
- Attitudes to and management of fertility among primary health care physicians in Turkey: an epidemiological study.BMC public health · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreconception care (PC) aims to identify and reduce a number of modifiable factors that can adversely affect pregnancy outcome.
aimTo ascertain both knowledge of the attitudes towards PC among members of primary health care teams (PHCTs) and registered women of childbearing age in a representative sample of general practices in Harrow.
methodA questionnaire survey was conducted in a randomly selected group of nine general practices in the London borough of Harrow. Subjects included all relevant health professionals and female patients of childbearing age registered with the practices.
resultsA total of 62/88 (70.5%) health professionals and 811 women (1 in 20 of the entire target population) completed the questionnaires. Nurses' knowledge matched that of the doctors, except in the area of genetics. Over 85% of all health professionals believed that PC could be of benefit to both mother and baby. Women were generally well informed; Asian women, those born outside the UK, those who had never been pregnant, and those who had not undertaken education beyond the age of 18 years were significantly less well informed. Health professionals considered PC to be best delivered opportunistically by nurses, and this method appeared to be acceptable to most female patients of childbearing age, although it was significantly less acceptable among Asians.
conclusionAmong health professionals and women of childbearing age, there is generally a good level of knowledge of PC, although certain groups are less well informed than others and could benefit from a targeted education approach. Widespread agreement that PC is worthwhile was found among PHCT members, but this view is less strongly held by the female public, with the acceptability of providing PC opportunistically differing significantly between ethnic groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9624765PMC1409978W2140533660What 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.