Preconception health care interventions: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy is often framed as a "window of opportunity" for intervening on a variety of health practices such as alcohol and tobacco use. However, there is evidence that interventions focusing solely on the time of pregnancy can be too narrow and potentially stigmatizing. Indeed, health risks observed in the preconception period often continue during pregnancy. Using a scoping review methodology, this study consolidates knowledge and information related to current preconception and interconception health care interventions published in the academic literature. We identified a total of 29 intervention evaluations, and summarized these narratively. Findings suggest that there has been some progress in intervening on preconception health, with the majority of interventions offering assessment or screening followed by brief intervention or counselling. Overall, these interventions demonstrated improvements in at least some of the outcomes measured. However, further preconception care research and intervention design is needed. In particular, the integration of gender transformative principles into preconception care is needed, along with further intervention design for partners/ men, and more investigation on how best to deliver preconception care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it