Understanding preconception care: a scoping review of knowledge, attitudes and practices among reproductive age individuals, healthcare workers and stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yared Asmare Aynalem, Pauline Paul, Janice Y Kung, Amber Hussain, Zohra Lassi, Salima Meherali
{"title":"Understanding preconception care: a scoping review of knowledge, attitudes and practices among reproductive age individuals, healthcare workers and stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries.","authors":"Yared Asmare Aynalem, Pauline Paul, Janice Y Kung, Amber Hussain, Zohra Lassi, Salima Meherali","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This scoping review aims to map existing evidence on knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) and barriers to preconception care in low- and middle-income countries. The primary objective is to identify key gaps and research priorities to guide future efforts to improve maternal and child health.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, with a comprehensive search across Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies included original research on preconception care (PCC), KAP in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) without date restrictions. Two independent reviewers conducted screening in Covidence. Findings were presented in graphical, tabular and narrative formats, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) standard.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The review focused on PCC studies conducted in LMICs across various healthcare settings, emphasising primary and secondary levels of care. The geographical scope was global but limited to LMICs as defined by World Bank criteria.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>A total of 62 studies were included in the review. Of these, 42 employed quantitative methods, 18 used qualitative approaches and 2 used a mixed-methods design. Regarding focus areas, 25 studies assessed knowledge, 14 assessed practices, 12 studies assessed KAP comprehensively and 10 assessed attitudes. Participants were mainly women of reproductive age (44 studies), with only five studies including men. Among healthcare providers, KAP varied, with midwives being the most frequently studied group. Stakeholders such as policymakers were notably under-represented. Identified barriers included limited training, cultural beliefs and inadequate policies. Facilitators highlighted were targeted education, spousal support and policy advocacy, emphasising the need for gender-sensitive and systemic interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LMICs face complex challenges in utilising PCC, influenced by socioeconomic, cultural, and healthcare system factors. To address these challenges, nuanced approaches incorporating intersectional perspectives and practical qualitative methodologies are essential for improving couples' and child health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) on December 23, 2022, with DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H3MK6.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 6","pages":"e099143"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099143","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This scoping review aims to map existing evidence on knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) and barriers to preconception care in low- and middle-income countries. The primary objective is to identify key gaps and research priorities to guide future efforts to improve maternal and child health.

Design: This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, with a comprehensive search across Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies included original research on preconception care (PCC), KAP in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) without date restrictions. Two independent reviewers conducted screening in Covidence. Findings were presented in graphical, tabular and narrative formats, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) standard.

Setting: The review focused on PCC studies conducted in LMICs across various healthcare settings, emphasising primary and secondary levels of care. The geographical scope was global but limited to LMICs as defined by World Bank criteria.

Result: A total of 62 studies were included in the review. Of these, 42 employed quantitative methods, 18 used qualitative approaches and 2 used a mixed-methods design. Regarding focus areas, 25 studies assessed knowledge, 14 assessed practices, 12 studies assessed KAP comprehensively and 10 assessed attitudes. Participants were mainly women of reproductive age (44 studies), with only five studies including men. Among healthcare providers, KAP varied, with midwives being the most frequently studied group. Stakeholders such as policymakers were notably under-represented. Identified barriers included limited training, cultural beliefs and inadequate policies. Facilitators highlighted were targeted education, spousal support and policy advocacy, emphasising the need for gender-sensitive and systemic interventions.

Conclusion: LMICs face complex challenges in utilising PCC, influenced by socioeconomic, cultural, and healthcare system factors. To address these challenges, nuanced approaches incorporating intersectional perspectives and practical qualitative methodologies are essential for improving couples' and child health outcomes.

Trial registration number: The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) on December 23, 2022, with DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H3MK6.

了解孕前护理:对低收入和中等收入国家育龄个人、保健工作者和利益攸关方的知识、态度和做法进行范围审查。
目的:本范围审查旨在绘制关于低收入和中等收入国家的知识、态度和做法(KAP)和孕前护理障碍的现有证据。主要目标是确定主要差距和研究重点,以指导今后改善孕产妇和儿童健康的努力。设计:本综述遵循Arksey和O'Malley的范围综述框架,在Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL和Scopus上进行了从成立到2025年5月的全面检索。符合条件的研究包括无日期限制的低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)孕前护理(PCC)和KAP的原始研究。两名独立审查人员在covid - 19期间进行了筛查。研究结果以图形、表格和叙述的形式呈现,遵循系统评价和元分析方案扩展范围评价的首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)标准。环境:本综述侧重于在不同卫生保健环境中进行的PCC研究,强调初级和二级卫生保健水平。地理范围是全球性的,但仅限于世界银行标准所界定的中低收入国家。结果:共纳入62项研究。其中42例采用定量方法,18例采用定性方法,2例采用混合方法设计。在重点领域方面,25项研究评估知识,14项研究评估实践,12项研究评估KAP综合,10项研究评估态度。参与者主要是育龄妇女(44项研究),只有5项研究包括男性。在医疗保健提供者中,KAP各不相同,助产士是最常见的研究群体。政策制定者等利益相关者的代表性明显不足。确定的障碍包括培训有限、文化信仰和政策不足。重点强调的促进因素包括有针对性的教育、配偶支助和政策宣传,强调需要对性别问题有敏感认识的系统干预措施。结论:受社会经济、文化和卫生保健系统因素的影响,中低收入国家在使用PCC方面面临着复杂的挑战。为了应对这些挑战,结合交叉视角和实用定性方法的细致入微的方法对于改善夫妻和儿童的健康结果至关重要。试验注册号:该研究方案已于2022年12月23日在开放科学框架(OSF)中注册,DOI: 10.17605/OSF. io /H3MK6。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信