The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Weighing as part of your care: a feasibility study exploring the re-introduction of weight measurements during pregnancy as part of routine antenatal care
Open accessAbstract
Background: The UK does not currently have guidelines on gestational weight gain owing to gaps in the evidence base. Reintroducing routine weighing of women throughout pregnancy would begin to provide the evidence needed to fill this gap. The aim of this research was to re-introduce measurement of weight at each routine antenatal appointment in a small scale study, in order to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the practice on a larger scale. Methods: A feasibility study, incorporating quantitative and qualitative components, was conducted in one antenatal hospital clinic and with one community midwifery team. Thirty-eight pregnant women were recruited at their 20 week anomaly scan appointment and weighed at their appointments throughout the rest of their pregnancy; five participated in a telephone interview at approximately 37 weeks gestation. Data were collected on: numbers consenting to be weighed, reasons for declining to be weighed and number of weight measurements recorded. Qualitative interviews were used to explore acceptability of the practice to pregnant women. Results: Overall, 79.2% (38 out of 48) of those approached consented to being weighed throughout pregnancy; of the 10 who declined, three cited not wanting to be weighed. In the interviews, women discussed routine weighing as a positive experience, described several benefits of weighing and indicated they would like more information about weight during pregnancy. No major barriers to the integration of a weight measurement into routine antenatal appointments were encountered. Completion of the weight record sheets that were inserted into women’s handheld notes varied between staff: of the 26 sheets recovered from handheld notes, only 3 (11.5%) had no weights recorded, 17 (65.4%) had between one and three weights recorded and six (23.1%) had more than 4 weights recorded. Conclusions: In this feasibility study, routine weighing was acceptable to pregnant women. No barriers that would inhibit re-introduction of weighing women throughout pregnancy into standard antenatal care were encountered. Implementation of routine weighing during pregnancy on a larger scale should be considered as it may have benefits for women in the short and long-term, particularly with regard to informing appropriate gestational weight gain guidelines in the UK.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
A 2020 feasibility study in Ireland reported that being weighed throughout pregnancy gave women reassurance with regard to the growth of their babies.
“A 2020 feasibility study in Ireland reported that women found being weighed throughout their pregnancy a positive experience and gave them reassurance with regard to the growth of their babies. 114”
From Overweight, obesity and excessive weight gain in pregnancy as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as [114]
A 2020 feasibility study in Ireland reported that women found being weighed throughout their pregnancy a positive experience.
“A 2020 feasibility study in Ireland reported that women found being weighed throughout their pregnancy a positive experience and gave them reassurance with regard to the growth of their babies. 114”
From Overweight, obesity and excessive weight gain in pregnancy as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as [114]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
How we design feasibility studies
Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., Kaplan, C. P., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., et al. (2009) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 · Cited by 4,021
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Marchi J, Berg M, Dencker A, Olander EK, Begley C. Risks associated with obesity in pregnancy, for the mother and baby: a systematic review of reviews. Obes Rev. 2015;16(8):621–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12288. · DOI · Paper page
- Scott-Pillai R, Spence D, Cardwell C, Hunter A, Holmes V. The impact of body mass index on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a retrospective study in a UK obstetric population, 2004–2011. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;120(8):932–9. · DOI
- Linne Y, Neovius M. Identification of women at risk of adverse weight development following pregnancy. Int J Obes. 2006;30(8):1234–9. · DOI
- Leslie W, Gibson A, Hankey C. Prevention and management of excessive gestational weight gain: a survey of overweight and obese pregnant women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(1):10. · DOI
- Allen-Walker V, Woodside J, Holmes V, Young I, Cupples ME, Hunter A, McKinley MC. Routine weighing of women during pregnancy-is it time to change current practice? BJOG : Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(6):871–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13511. · DOI
- Dawes M, Grudzinskas J. Repeated measurement of maternal weight during pregnancy. Is this a useful practice? BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98(2):189–94. · DOI
- Allen-Walker V, Mullaney L, Turner MJ, Woodside JV, Holmes VA, McCartney DM, McKinley MC. How do women feel about being weighed during pregnancy? A qualitative exploration of the opinions and experiences of postnatal women. Midwifery. 2016;49:95–101. · DOI
- Brownfoot FC, Davey MA, Kornman L. Women's opinions on being weighed at routine antenatal visits. BJOG : Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(2):263–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13790. · DOI
- Daley, A. J., Jolly, K., Jebb, S. A., Lewis, A. L., Clifford, S., Roalfe, A. K., Aveyard, P. (2015). Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study. BMC Obes, 2, 35-015-0061-5. eCollection 2015. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40608-015-0061-5. · DOI
- Heslehurst N, Russell S, McCormack S, Sedgewick G, Bell R, Rankin J. Midwives perspectives of their training and education requirements in maternal obesity: a qualitative study. Midwifery. 2013;29(7):736–44. · DOI
- Macleod M, Gregor A, Barnett C, Magee E, Thompson J, Anderson AS. Provision of weight management advice for obese women during pregnancy: a survey of current practice and midwives’ views on future approaches. Midwifery. 2012;9(4):467–72.
- Wilkinson SA, Poad D, Stapleton H. Maternal overweight and obesity: a survey of clinicians’ characteristics and attitudes and their responses to their pregnant clients. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:117. · DOI
- Narayanan RP, Weeks AD, Quenby S, Rycroft D, Hart A, Longworth H, Wilding JP. Fit for birth - the effect of weight changes in obese pregnant women on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a pilot prospective cohort study. Clin Obes. 2016;6(1):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12129. · DOI
- Atkinson S, McNamara PM. Unconscious collusion: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the maternity care experiences of women with obesity (BMI≥30kg/m2). Midwifery. 2017;49:54–64. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Langley‐Evans, S. C., Pearce, J., & Ellis, S. (2022) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.12999 · Cited by 288
Metadata
- Authors
- Allen-Walker, V., Hunter, A. J., Holmes, V. A., & McKinley, M. C.
- Affiliations
- Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (GB)
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McKinley, M. C.
- Venue
- BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
- Published
- 2020-05-29
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 328-328
- ISSN
- 1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7257171
- OpenAlex
- W3029876018
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 0.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Department for the Economy
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Keywords
- gestational weight gain, prenatal care, weight measurement, acceptability, feasibility, midwifery care, patient consent
- MeSH terms
- Gestational Weight Gain, Adult, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, United Kingdom, Humans, Midwifery, Obesity, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Prenatal 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