Preconception health and care policies, strategies and guidelines in the UK and Ireland: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preconception care can significantly improve maternal and infant outcomes, and thus optimise intergenerational health. The aims of this scoping review are to (1) provide an up-to-date summary of preconception health and care strategies, policies, guidelines, frameworks and recommendations across the UK and Ireland and (2) explore preconception health and care services and interventions in Northern Ireland as a case study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review of grey literature will be conducted as per the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Arksey-O'Malley framework for scoping studies, and reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted on Google Advanced Search, OpenAire, NICE, ProQuest and relevant public health websites in May 2022. Only results published, reviewed or updated between January 2011 and the time of the searches (May 2022) were considered for inclusion. In addition, searches on interventions and services provided in Northern Ireland will be supplemented by consultations and audits with key stakeholders to validate findings, identify other potentially eligible resources and ensure breadth of coverage. Data will be extracted into Excel and coded using NVivo, and ≥10% of the data will be double-coded. A narrative approach with content analysis highlighting key themes and concepts will be used to report findings.Throughout the research cycle, members of the wider public will be involved and engaged with to provide feedback. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as analyses will be conducted on data available in the public domain. Findings will be shared with relevant stakeholders with the aim to inform future research, practice and decision-making, and disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and infographics. Dissemination plans will be informed by the 'Healthy Reproductive Years' patient and public involvement and engagement advisory panel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".