Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36419177›Full record

ReviewImplementation science communications2022

The effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving preconception and antenatal preventive care: a systematic review.

Emma Doherty, Melanie Kingsland, John Wiggers, Luke Wolfenden, Alix Hall, Sam McCrabb, Danika Tremain, Jenna Hollis, Milly Licata, Olivia Wynne and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effectiveness of dissemination strategies of maternal clinical guidelines: A narrative review.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Emma DohertyPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia. emma.doherty@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8445-6766
Melanie KingslandPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
John WiggersPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Luke WolfendenPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Alix HallPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Sam McCrabbPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Danika TremainPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Jenna HollisPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Milly LicataPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Olivia WynnePopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Sophie DilworthPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Justine B DalyPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Belinda TullyPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Julia DraySchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Kylie A BaileySchool of Psychological Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth J ElliottFaculty of Medicine and Health and Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Rebecca K HodderPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUHunter New England Local Health District · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guideline recommendations for addressing modifiable risk factors are not routinely implemented into preconception and antenatal care. This review assessed the effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving health professional provision of preconception and antenatal care addressing tobacco smoking, weight management and alcohol consumption.

methodsA systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies with a parallel comparison group was conducted. Eligible studies used implementation strategy/ies targeted at health professionals to improve at least one element of preconception and/or antenatal care (smoking: ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange; weight/alcohol: assess, advise, refer) compared to usual practice/control or alternative strategies. Eligible studies were identified via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL and other sources. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate, with other findings summarised using the direction of effect. The certainty of the pooled evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

resultsFourteen studies were included in the review. Thirteen were in the antenatal period and 12 tested multiple implementation strategies (median: three). Meta-analyses of RCTs found that implementation strategies compared to usual practice/control probably increase asking (OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.13, 5.59; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and advising (OR: 4.32; 95% CI: 3.06, 6.11; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) about smoking and assessing weight gain (OR: 57.56; 95% CI: 41.78, 79.29; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase assessing (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 0.24, 27.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), assisting (OR: 6.34; 95% CI: 1.51, 26.63; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and arranging support (OR: 3.55; 95% CI: 0.50, 25.34; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) for smoking. The true effect of implementation strategies in increasing advice about weight gain (OR: 3.37; 95% CI: 2.34, 4.84; 2 non-randomised studies; very low-certainty evidence) and alcohol consumption (OR: 10.36; 95% CI: 2.37, 41.20; 2 non-randomised studies; very low-certainty evidence) is uncertain due to the quality of evidence to date.

conclusionsReview findings provide some evidence to support the effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving health professional delivery of antenatal care addressing smoking and weight management. Rigorous research is needed to build certainty in the evidence for improving alcohol and weight gain advice, and in preconception care.

trial registrationPROSPERO-CRD42019131691.

Indexed as

AntenatalGuidelinesImplementationMeta-analysesModifiable risk factorsPreconceptionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36419177
PMCPMC9682815
OpenAlexW4309701562

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.