MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000345209 · doi:10.1186/s12884-020-2733-5

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

2020· article· en· W3000345209 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Public Health, Queen's University BelfastDirectorate for Biological SciencesQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisMedicineQualitative researchPublic healthReproductive healthReproductive medicineFamily medicinePregnancyHealth carePopulationNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it