RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Women’s knowledge, attitudes and views of preconception health and intervention delivery methods: A cross-sectional survey
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.05.26.22275637
DO 10.1101/2022.05.26.22275637
A1 Michael P Daly
A1 James White
A1 Julia Sanders
A1 Ruth R Kipping
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.05.26.22275637.abstract
AB Background Several preconception exposures have been associated with adverse pregnancy, birth and postpartum outcomes. However, few studies have investigated women’s knowledge of and attitudes towards preconception health, and the acceptability of potential intervention methods.Methods Seven GP practices in the West of England posted questionnaires to 4,330 female patients aged 18 to 48 years. Without providing examples, we asked women to list maternal preconception exposures that might affect infant and maternal outcomes, and assessed their knowledge of nine literature-derived risk factors. Attitudes towards preconception health (interest, intentions, self-efficacy and perceived awareness and importance) and the acceptability of intervention delivery methods were also assessed. Multivariable multilevel regression examined participant characteristics associated with these outcomes.Results Of those who received questionnaires, 835 (19.3%) responded. Women were most aware of the preconception risk factors of diet (86.0%) and physical activity (79.2%). Few were aware of weight (40.1%), folic acid (32.9%), abuse (6.3%), advanced age (5.9%) and interpregnancy intervals (0.2%), and none mentioned interpregnancy weight change or excess iron intake. After adjusting for demographic and reproductive covariates, women aged 18-25-years (compared to 40-48-years) and nulligravid women were less aware of the benefit of preconception folic acid supplementation (adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for age: 4.30 [2.10-8.80], gravidity: aOR 2.48 [1.70-3.62]). Younger women were more interested in learning more about preconception health (aOR 0.37 [0.21-0.63]) but nulligravid women were less interested in this (aOR 1.79 [1.30-2.46]). Women with the lowest household incomes (versus the highest) were less aware of preconception weight as a risk factor (aOR: 3.11 [1.65-5.84]) and rated the importance of preconception health lower (aOR 3.38 [1.90-6.00]). The most acceptable information delivery channels were websites/apps (99.5%), printed healthcare materials (98.6%), family/partners (96.3%), schools (94.4%), television (91.9%), pregnancy tests (91.0%) and doctors, midwives and nurses (86.8-97.0%). Dentists (23.9%) and hairdressers/beauticians (18.1%) were the least acceptable.Conclusions Our findings demonstrate a need to promote awareness of preconception risk factors and motivation for preconception health changes, particularly amongst younger and nulligravid women and women with lower incomes. Interventions to improve preconception health should focus on communication from healthcare professionals, schools, family members, and digital media.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by grant MR/N0137941/1 for the GW4 BIOMED DTP, awarded to the Universities of Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter from the Medical Research Council (MRC)/UKRI. The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscriptAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The South West Frenchay Research Ethics Committee gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authorsAHEI:Alternate Healthy Eating IndexBMI:Body Mass IndexGP:General PractitionerNatsal-3:National survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles