Cited by 58Maternal and Neonatal HealthcareReproductive Health and ContraceptionGlobal Maternal and Child Health

Preconception care: a 2008 update

Atrash, Hani, Jack, Brian W, Johnson, Kay·2008·Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This study reviews what we know about preconception care, its definition, goals, and content; the science behind the recommended interventions; opportunities for implementing preconception care; and the challenges facing its implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: There is solid scientific evidence that many interventions will improve pregnancy outcomes if delivered before pregnancy or early in pregnancy. Experts continue to explore the most effective means for implementing preconception care, taking into consideration issues related to policy, finance, public health practice, research/surveillance, and consumer and provider education. SUMMARY: Over the past 4 years, there has been renewed interest and a great emphasis on preconception health and healthcare as alternative and additional approaches to counter the persistent increasing incidence in adverse pregnancy outcomes in the United States. Following the publication of the 'Recommendations to Improve Preconception Health and Healthcare' in 2006, many state and local health departments initiated programs to implement the recommendations. Several countries such as Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have also started to implement preconception care programs. There are many opportunities for promoting preconception health and providing preconception care; however, making preconception care a standard practice continues to face many barriers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/gco.0b013e328317a27c

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Atrash, H., Jack, B. W., & Johnson, K.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Atrash, Hani
Venue
Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2008-12
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
581-589
ISSN
1040-872X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995831360
Cited by
58
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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
preconception care, preconception health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, health policy, health care financing, public health practice, provider education, consumer education, pregnancy surveillance, state and local health departments
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Obstetrics, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy Outcome, Public Health, Preconception Care, Perinatal Care

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