Cited by 101Maternal and Neonatal HealthcareReproductive Health and ContraceptionGlobal Maternal and Child Health

Routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes

Open access
Whitworth, Melissa, Dowswell, Therese·2009·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A number of potentially modifiable risk factors are known to be associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. These include smoking, drinking excess alcohol, and poor nutrition. Routine health promotion (encompassing education, advice and general health assessment) in the pre-pregnancy period has been proposed for improving pregnancy outcomes by encouraging behavioural change, or allowing early identification of risk factors. While results from observational studies have been encouraging, this review examines evidence from randomised controlled trials of preconception health promotion. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes when compared with no pre-pregnancy care or usual care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (February 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials examining health promotion interventions which aim to identify and modify risk factors before pregnancy. The review focuses on all women of childbearing age rather than those in high-risk groups. We have excluded trials where interventions are aimed specifically at women with established medical, obstetric or genetic risks or already receiving treatment as part of programmes for high-risk groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and carried out data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials (2300 women) are included. The interventions ranged from brief advice through to education on health and lifestyle over several sessions. For most outcomes, data were only available from individual studies. Only one study followed up through pregnancy and there was no strong evidence of a difference between groups for preterm birth, congenital anomalies or weight for gestational age; only one finding (mean birthweight) reached statistical significance (mean difference -97.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -168.05 to -25.95). This finding needs to be interpreted with caution as pregnancy outcome data were available for only half of the women randomised. There was some evidence that health promotion interventions were associated with positive maternal behavioural change including lower rates of binge drinking (risk ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.44). Overall, there has been little research in this area and there is a lack of evidence on the effects of pre-pregnancy health promotion on pregnancy outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence on the effects of pre-pregnancy health promotion and much more research is needed in this area. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the widespread implementation of routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for women of childbearing age, either in the general population or between pregnancies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007536.pub2

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Health promotion activities, such as education, advice and a general health assessment, are likely to improve pregnancy outcomes, by early identification of risk factors encouraging behavioural change.

    “Health promotion activities, such as education, advice and a general health assessment, are likely to improve pregnancy outcomes, by early identification of risk factors encouraging behavioural change [15–17].”

    From Associations between periconceptional lifestyle behaviours and adverse pregnancy outcomes (2021) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Background (‘Description of the intervention’) describes education, advice and health assessment as a proposed way to improve pregnancy outcomes through behavioural change or early identification of risk factors. But the Abstract (‘Main results’) says there is a lack of evidence on effects on pregnancy outcomes, so ‘likely to improve’ is stronger than this review supports. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. de Jong-Potjer LC Elsinga J le Cessie S van der Palde Bruin KM Neven A Knuistingh, Buitendijk SE, et al GP-initiated preconception counselling in a randomised controlled trial does not induce anxiety. BMC Family Practice 2006 7 66 PMC1664572 17083722 * Elsinga J van der Pal-de Bruin K le Cessie S de Jong-Potjer L Verloove-Vanhorick S Assendelft W Preconception counselling initiated by general practitioners in the Netherlands: reaching couples contemplating pregnancy [ISRCTN53942912] BMC Family Practice 2006 7 41 16824233 PMC1552064
  2. Ceperich S Ingersoll K Kareakashian M Penberthy JK Farrell L Fabbri S Early outcomes of a 1-session intervention to prevent alcohol-exposed pregnancy in preconception women 2008 32 Proceedings of the 70th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence San Juan, Puerto Rico 2008 June 14-19 * Floyd RL Sobell M Velasquez MM Ingersoll K Nettleman M Sobell L Preventing alcohol-exposed pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2007 32 1 1 10 17218187 PMC2888541
  3. Jack BW Culpepper L Babcock J Kogan MD Weismiller D Addressing preconception risks identified at the time of a negative pregnancy test. A randomized trial Journal of Family Practice 1998 47 1 33 8 9673606
  4. Lumley J A randomized trial of pre-pregnancy counselling in inner city Melbourne Personal communication 1993 * Lumley J Donohue L Aiming to increase birth weight: a randomised trial of pre-pregnancy information, advice and counselling in inner-urban Melbourne BMC Public Health 2006 6 299 17156466 PMC1712341
  5. Robbins JM Cleves MA Collins HB Andrews N Smith LN Hobbs CA Randomized trial of a physician-based intervention to increase the use of folic acid supplements among women American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005 192 4 1126 32 15846191
  6. Downs DS Feinberg M Hillemeier MM Weisman CS Chase GA Chuang CH Design of the Central Pennsylvania Women’s Health Study (CePAWHS) Strong Healthy Women Intervention: Improving Preconceptional Health Maternal and Child Health Journal 2009 13 1 18 28 18270808 PMC2696480 * Velott DL Baker SA Hillemeier MM Weisman CS Participant recruitment to a randomized trial of a community-based behavioral intervention for pre- and interconceptional women findings from the Central Pennsylvania Women’s Health Study Womens Health Issues 2008 18 3 217 24 18457756
  7. Prunty MC Sharpe L Butow P Fulcher G The motherhood choice: a decision aid for women with multiple sclerosis Patient Education and Counseling 2008 71 1 108 15 18160245
  8. Adams MM Bruce FC Shulman HB Kendrick JS Brogan DJ Pregnancy planning and pre-conception counseling. The PRAMS Working Group Obstetrics & Gynecology 1993 82 6 955 9 8233272
  9. Clark NA Fisk NM Minimal compliance with the Department of Health recommendation for routine folate prophylaxis to prevent fetal neural tube defects British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1994 101 8 709 10 7947508
  10. Czeizel AE Ten years of experience in periconceptional care European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1999 84 1 43 9 10413225
  11. de Jong-Potjer LC de Bock GH Zaadstra BM de Jong ORW Verloove-Vanhorick SP Springer MP Women’s interest in GP-initiated pre-conception counselling in The Netherlands Family Practice 2003 20 2 142 6 12651787
  12. Evers JL Female subfertility Lancet 2002 360 151 9 12126838
  13. Gates S Methodological Guidelines. In: The Editorial Team. Pregnancy and Childbirth Group About the Cochrane Collaboration 2005 Issue 2 Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs)
  14. Gnoth C Frank-Herrmann P Freundl G Godehardt D Godehardt E Time to pregnancy: results of the German prospective study and impact on the management of infertility Human Reproduction 2003 18 1959 66 12923157
  15. Heyes T Long S Mathers N Preconception care: practice and beliefs of primary care workers Family Practice 2004 21 1 22 7 14760039
  16. Johnson K Posner SF Biermann J Cordero JF Atrash HK Parker CS Recommendations to improve preconception health and health care--United States. A report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 2006 55 RR-6 1 23 16617292
  17. RCOG RCM RCA RCPCH Standards for maternity care. Report of a Working Party 2008 RCOG Press London
  18. The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) 2008 The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration Copenhagen 5.0
  19. Stade BC Bailey C Dzendoletas D Sgro M Dowswell T Psychological and/or educational interventions for reducing prenatal alcohol consumption in pregnant women and women planning pregnancy Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 Issue 2 [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004228] PMC4164939 19370597 · DOI
  20. Tieu J Middleton P Crowther CA Preconception care for diabetic women to improve maternal and infant health Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 Issue 2 [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007776] 21154385 · DOI
  21. Wallace M Hurwitz B Preconception care: who needs it, who wants it, and how should it be provided? British Journal of General Practice 1998 48 427 963 6 9624765 PMC1409978

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whitworth, M., & Dowswell, T.
Affiliations
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-07
Volume
2010
Issue
1
Pages
CD007536-CD007536
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2137447904
Cited by
92
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
Keywords
pregnancy outcomes, preconception care, binge drinking, smoking, alcohol consumption, nutrition, birth weight, preterm birth, congenital malformations, weight for gestational age, women of reproductive age, risk factor control, health education, brief advice, lifestyle counseling, usual care comparison, intervention effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Education, Health Promotion, Humans, Maternal Behavior, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Risk Factors, Health Behavior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Preconception Care, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review