Cited by 48Reproductive Health and ContraceptionMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareReproductive Health and Technologies

Exploring preconception health beliefs amongst adults of childbearing age in the UK: a qualitative analysis

Open access
McGowan, Laura, Lennon-Caughey, Emer, Chun, Cheryl, McKinley, Michelle C., Woodside, Jayne V.·2020·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Abstract

Background: ‘Preconception health’ or ‘pre-pregnancy health’ are terms used to describe the health status of males and females prior to pregnancy. The goal of preconception health strategies is to optimise the health of future offspring via improved parental health, which may result from planned/unplanned pregnancies. Greater emphasis is being placed upon preconception health amongst research and public health, yet there is limited evidence on this topic from the perspective of UK adults. This research explored beliefs, knowledge and attitudes on preconception health amongst adults of childbearing age, drawn from the UK. Methods: A descriptive qualitative focus group study was undertaken with healthy males and females of childbearing age (18–45 years) between October 2018 and July 2019. Two groups were held in a rural location (one focus group, one mini focus group) and three groups held in an urban location (two focus groups, one mini focus group), with a range of males and females, with and without children. A semi-structured topic guide was devised based on previous literature. All groups were conducted with two researchers trained in qualitative research methods. Focus groups explored understanding/prior knowledge of preconception health, beliefs and attitudes towards preconception healthcare support and personal health. Focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-one males and females of childbearing age (aged 18 to 45 years) participated in the research. Discussions revealed a lack of comprehensive awareness of the importance of preconception health and a sense of reluctance to visit a doctor regarding the issue, favouring the internet, unless having problems conceiving. Five themes identified included: preconception education, preconception awareness, wider knowledge networks/support, optimal parental health, and attitudes/emotions towards preconception health. The roles of males regarding positive preconception care was not well understood. Conclusions: This study highlighted a lack of detailed awareness surrounding the importance of preconception health per se, despite general agreement that health status should be optimal at this time. It identified a willingness to learn more about preconception health, creating an opportunity to improve preconception healthcare awareness via evidence-based education, social media campaigns, and within healthcare systems in a life course approach.

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 · 10.1186/s12884-020-2733-5

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 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?

  • This pattern is consistent with qualitative research demonstrating that preconception knowledge often clusters around a narrow set of salient behaviours, rather than a broader, multifactorial understanding of risk.

    “This pattern is consistent with qualitative research demonstrating that preconception knowledge often clusters around a narrow set of salient behaviours, rather than a broader, multifactorial understanding of risk [41, 42].”

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

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGowan, L., Lennon-Caughey, E., Chun, C., McKinley, M. C., & Woodside, J. V.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
Corresponding author
McGowan, Laura
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published
2020-01-16
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
41-41
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3000345209
Cited by
47
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Queen's University Belfast
  • Queen's University
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
preconception health, health beliefs, parental health, urban-rural differences, life course perspective
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Northern Ireland, Preconception Care, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, 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