Cited by 169Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationObesity and Health Practices

Implementation of pregnancy weight management and obesity guidelines: a meta‐synthesis of healthcare professionals' barriers and facilitators using the T heoretical D omains F ramework

Heslehurst, N., Newham, J., Maniatopoulos, G., Fleetwood, C., Robalino, S., Rankin, J.·2014·Obesity Reviews

Abstract

Summary: Obesity in pregnancy is rising and is associated with severe health consequences for both the mother and the child. There is an increasing international focus on guidelines to manage the clinical risks of maternal obesity, and for pregnancy weight management. However, passive dissemination of guidelines is not effective and more active strategies are required for effective guideline implementation into practice. Implementation of guidelines is a form of healthcare professional behaviour change, and therefore implementation strategies should be based on appropriate behaviour change theory. This systematic review aimed to identify the determinants of healthcare professionals' behaviours in relation to maternal obesity and weight management. Twenty‐five studies were included. Data synthesis of the existing international qualitative and quantitative evidence base used the T heoretical D omains F ramework to identify the barriers and facilitators to healthcare professionals' maternal obesity and weight management practice. The domains most frequently identified included ‘knowledge’, ‘beliefs about consequences’ and ‘environmental context and resources’. Healthcare professionals' weight management practice had the most barriers compared with any other area of maternal obesity practice. The results of this review will be used to inform the development of an intervention to support healthcare professional behaviour change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.12160

Cites

54 of 54 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heslehurst, N., Newham, J., Maniatopoulos, G., Fleetwood, C., Robalino, S., & Rankin, J.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Heslehurst, N.
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-16
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
462-486
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W2166153293
Cited by
169
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2011-04-034)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
Keywords
maternal obesity, weight management in pregnancy, guideline implementation, barriers and facilitators, Theoretical Domains Framework, behavior change, knowledge, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, clinical practice
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Weight, Communication, Diet, Female, Health Personnel, Health Priorities, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Obesity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Prenatal Care, Health Behavior, Exercise, MEDLINE, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Maternal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena

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