Understanding preconception care: a scoping review of knowledge, attitudes and practices among reproductive age individuals, healthcare workers and stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to map existing evidence on knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) and barriers to preconception care in low- and middle-income countries. The primary objective is to identify key gaps and research priorities to guide future efforts to improve maternal and child health. DESIGN: This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, with a comprehensive search across Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies included original research on preconception care (PCC), KAP in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) without date restrictions. Two independent reviewers conducted screening in Covidence. Findings were presented in graphical, tabular and narrative formats, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) standard. SETTING: The review focused on PCC studies conducted in LMICs across various healthcare settings, emphasising primary and secondary levels of care. The geographical scope was global but limited to LMICs as defined by World Bank criteria. RESULT: A total of 62 studies were included in the review. Of these, 42 employed quantitative methods, 18 used qualitative approaches and 2 used a mixed-methods design. Regarding focus areas, 25 studies assessed knowledge, 14 assessed practices, 12 studies assessed KAP comprehensively and 10 assessed attitudes. Participants were mainly women of reproductive age (44 studies), with only five studies including men. Among healthcare providers, KAP varied, with midwives being the most frequently studied group. Stakeholders such as policymakers were notably under-represented. Identified barriers included limited training, cultural beliefs and inadequate policies. Facilitators highlighted were targeted education, spousal support and policy advocacy, emphasising the need for gender-sensitive and systemic interventions. CONCLUSION: LMICs face complex challenges in utilising PCC, influenced by socioeconomic, cultural, and healthcare system factors. To address these challenges, nuanced approaches incorporating intersectional perspectives and practical qualitative methodologies are essential for improving couples' and child health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) on December 23, 2022, with DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H3MK6.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».