Men’s knowledge of preconception health: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preconception health is defined as the physical and psychological well-being of women and men throughout their reproductive life. It is a method that raises healthy fertility and focuses on activities that persons can take to minimize risks, raise healthy lifestyles, and increase preparation for pregnancy. The purpose of this systematic review study was to assess men's knowledge of preconception health. Electronic databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Sciencedirect, ProQuest, Cochrane, SAGE, Springer, Google Scholar, were searched for published studies from 2000 to March 2021 to identify the studies carried out on men's knowledge of preconception health. The quality assessment was done using the critical appraisal skills program tool for qualitative studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cross-sectional studies. Of the 1195 references identified in the initial search, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Because of the diversity in the study design and the data collection tools used in studies, meta-analysis was impossible. All the studies of the present systematic review found that men's preconception health knowledge is poor. This systematic review showed that men's preconception health knowledge is low. Due to the limited studies of men's knowledge about the importance of optimizing their health before pregnancy, further study of the issue is still required.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".