Integrating interconception care in preventive child health care services: The Healthy Pregnancy 4 All program


Autoři: Meertien K. Sijpkens aff001;  Jacqueline Lagendijk aff001;  Minke R. C. van Minde aff001;  Marlou L. A. de Kroon aff001;  Loes C. M. Bertens aff001;  Ageeth N. Rosman aff001;  Eric A. P. Steegers aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands aff001;  Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands aff002;  Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands aff003;  Department of Health Care Studies, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224427

Souhrn

Background

Most parents with young children pay routine visits to Well-Baby Clinics, or so-called Preventive Child Health Care (PCHC) services. This offers a unique opportunity to promote and deliver interconception care. This study aimed to integrate such care and perform an implementation evaluation.

Methods

In seven Dutch municipalities, PCHC professionals were instructed to discuss the possibility of an interconception care consultation during each routine six-months well-baby visit. The primary outcome of this study was coverage of the intervention, quantified as the proportion of visits during which women were informed about interconception care. Secondary outcomes included adoption, fidelity, feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability and effectiveness of the intervention, studied by surveying PCHC professionals and women considering becoming pregnant.

Results

The possibility of interconception care was discussed during 29% (n = 1,849) of all visits, and 60% of the PCHC physicians adopted the promotion of interconception care by regularly informing women. About half of the PCHC professionals and most women judged integration of interconception care in PCHC appropriate and acceptable. Estimated feasibility was poor, since 13% of the professionals judged future integration in daily practice as probable. The uptake of interconception care consultations was low (n = 4 consultations).

Conclusions

Promotion of interconception care was achieved in approximately one-third of the routine PCHC consultations and appeared promising with regards to adoption, appropriateness and acceptability. However, concerns on feasibility and uptake of interconception care consultations in daily practice remain. Suggestions for improvement may include further integration of interconception care health promotion in routine PCHC consultations, while allocating sufficient resources.

Klíčová slova:

Child health – Medical risk factors – Midwives – Nurses – Physicians – Pregnancy – Questionnaires – Folic acid


Zdroje

1. DeCesare JZ, Jackson JR, Phillips B. Interconception Care Opportunities for Mom and Baby. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70(7):465–72. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000196 26185918

2. Atrash HK, Johnson K, Adams M, Cordero JF, Howse J. Preconception care for improving perinatal outcomes: the time to act. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(5 Suppl):S3–11.

3. Steegers-Theunissen RP, Twigt J, Pestinger V, Sinclair KD. The periconceptional period, reproduction and long-term health of offspring: the importance of one-carbon metabolism. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(6):640–55. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt041 23959022

4. Jack BW, Atrash H, Coonrod DV, Moos MK, O'Donnell J, Johnson K. The clinical content of preconception care: an overview and preparation of this supplement. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6 Suppl 2):S266–79.

5. Gluckman PD, Hanson MA, Cooper C, Thornburg KL. Effect of in utero and early-life conditions on adult health and disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(1):61–73. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0708473 18596274

6. Mook-Kanamori DO, Steegers EA, Eilers PH, Raat H, Hofman A, Jaddoe VW. Risk factors and outcomes associated with first-trimester fetal growth restriction. JAMA. 2010;303(6):527–34. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.78 20145229

7. Temel S, van Voorst SF, de Jong-Potjer LC, Waelput AJ, Cornel MC, de Weerd SR, et al. The Dutch national summit on preconception care: a summary of definitions, evidence and recommendations. Journal of Community Genetics. 2015;6(1):107–15. doi: 10.1007/s12687-014-0204-2 25394755

8. Vink-van Os LC, Birnie E, van Vliet-Lachotzki EH, Bonsel GJ, Steegers EA. Determining Pre-Conception Risk Profiles Using a National Online Self-Reported Risk Assessment: A Cross-Sectional Study. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(4):204–15. doi: 10.1159/000381449 25967756

9. Robbins CL, Zapata LB, Farr SL, Kroelinger CD, Morrow B, Ahluwalia I, et al. Core state preconception health indicators—pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system and behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2009. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveill Summ. 2014;63(3):1–62.

10. Toivonen KI, Oinonen KA, Duchene KM. Preconception health behaviours: A scoping review. Prev Med. 2017;96:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.11.022 27939264

11. Stephenson J, Patel D, Barrett G, Howden B, Copas A, Ojukwu O, et al. How do women prepare for pregnancy? Preconception experiences of women attending antenatal services and views of health professionals. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103085. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103085 25058333

12. Chuang CH, Hillemeier MM, Dyer AM, Weisman CS. The relationship between pregnancy intention and preconception health behaviors. Prev Med. 2011;53(1–2):85–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.04.009 21539855

13. Okah FA, Cai J. Primiparous outcomes and future pregnancy health behaviors. Am J Health Behav. 2014;38(2):316–20. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.38.2.17 24629560

14. Chuang CH, Weisman CS, Hillemeier MM, Schwarz EB, Camacho FT, Dyer AM. Pregnancy intention and health behaviors: Results from the Central Pennsylvania women's health study cohort. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2010;14(4):501–10. doi: 10.1007/s10995-009-0453-6 19214724

15. van Voorst S, Plasschaert S, de Jong-Potjer L, Steegers E, Denktas S. Current practice of preconception care by primary caregivers in the Netherlands. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21(3):251–8. doi: 10.3109/13625187.2016.1154524 27003266

16. Shawe J, Delbaere I, Ekstrand M, Hegaard HK, Larsson M, Mastroiacovo P, et al. Preconception care policy, guidelines, recommendations and services across six European countries: Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20(2):77–87. doi: 10.3109/13625187.2014.990088 25548961

17. Health Council of the Netherlands. Preconception care: a good beginning. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Publication no. 2007/19E. 2007.

18. de Smit DJ, Weinreich SS, Cornel MC. Effects of a simple educational intervention in well-baby clinics on women's knowledge about and intake of folic acid supplements in the periconceptional period: a controlled trial. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(6):1119–26. doi: 10.1017/S1368980014000986 24866258

19. Chilukuri N, Cheng TL, Psoter KJ, Mistry KB, Connor KA, Levy DJ, et al. Effectiveness of a Pediatric Primary Care Intervention to Increase Maternal Folate Use: Results from a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pediatr. 2018;192:247–52 e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.09.020 29246348

20. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6753 24259324

21. Waelput AJM, Sijpkens MK, Lagendijk J, van Minde MRC, Raat H, Ernst-Smelt HE, et al. Geographical differences in perinatal health and child welfare in the Netherlands: rationale for the healthy pregnancy 4 all-2 program. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1425-2 28764640

22. Denktas S, Poeran J, van Voorst SF, Vos AA, de Jong-Potjer LC, Waelput AJ, et al. Design and outline of the Healthy Pregnancy 4 All study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:253. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-253 25080942

23. van Voorst SF, Vos AA, de Jong-Potjer LC, Waelput AJ, Steegers EA, Denktas S. Effectiveness of general preconception care accompanied by a recruitment approach: protocol of a community-based cohort study (the Healthy Pregnancy 4 All study). BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):e006284. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006284 25795685

24. Sijpkens MK, van Voorst SF, de Jong-Potjer LC, Denktas S, Verhoeff AP, Bertens LCM, et al. The effect of a preconception care outreach strategy: the Healthy Pregnancy 4 All study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-3882-y 30674306

25. Wieske RC, Nijnuis MG, Carmiggelt BC, Wagenaar-Fischer MM, Boere-Boonekamp MM. Preventive youth health care in 11 European countries: an exploratory analysis. Int J Public Health. 2012;57(3):637–41. doi: 10.1007/s00038-011-0305-1 21956621

26. Jambroes M, Lamkaddem M, Stronks K, Essink-Bot ML. Enumerating the preventive youth health care workforce: Size, composition and regional variation in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2015;119(12):1557–64. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.08.002 26358246

27. Kuo AA, Inkelas M, Lotstein DS, Samson KM, Schor EL, Halfon N. Rethinking well-child care in the United States: an international comparison. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1692–702. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0620 17015563

28. Sijpkens MK, Steegers EA, Rosman AN. Facilitators and Barriers for Successful Implementation of Interconception Care in Preventive Child Health Care Services in the Netherlands. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(Suppl 1):117–24. doi: 10.1007/s10995-016-2046-5 27385150

29. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 20957426

30. Devillé W, Wiegers TA. Herijking stedelijke achterstandsgebieden 2012. Utrecht: NIVEL, 2012.

31. Fleuren M, Paulussen TG, Van Dommelen P, Van Buuren S. Towards a measurement instrument for determinants of innovations. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014.

32. Neta G, Glasgow RE, Carpenter CR, Grimshaw JM, Rabin BA, Fernandez ME, et al. A Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(1):49–57. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302206 25393182

33. Sanchez A, Grandes G, Cortada JM, Pombo H, Martinez C, Corrales MH, et al. Feasibility of an implementation strategy for the integration of health promotion in routine primary care: a quantitative process evaluation. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0585-5 28212621

34. Burgess CK, Henning PA, Norman WV, Manze MG, Jones HE. A systematic review of the effect of reproductive intention screening in primary care settings on reproductive health outcomes. Fam Pract. 2017.

35. van Voorst SF, Ten Kate CA, de Jong-Potjer LC, Steegers EAP, Denktas S. Developing social marketed individual preconception care consultations: Which consumer preferences should it meet? Health Expect. 2017.

36. Allen D, Hunter MS, Wood S, Beeson T. One Key Question((R)): First Things First in Reproductive Health. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(3):387–92. doi: 10.1007/s10995-017-2283-2 28220337

37. Poels M, Koster MP, Boeije HR, Franx A, van Stel HF. Why Do Women Not Use Preconception Care? A Systematic Review On Barriers And Facilitators. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71(10):603–12. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000360 27770130

38. Bloomfield J, Rising SS. CenteringParenting: an innovative dyad model for group mother-infant care. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2013;58(6):683–9. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12132 24406037

39. Rosener SE, Barr WB, Frayne DJ, Barash JH, Gross ME, Bennett IM. Interconception Care for Mothers During Well-Child Visits With Family Physicians: An IMPLICIT Network Study. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(4):350–5. doi: 10.1370/afm.1933 27401423

40. Srinivasan S, Schlar L, Rosener SE, Frayne DJ, Hartman SG, Horst MA, et al. Delivering Interconception Care During Well-Child Visits: An IMPLICIT Network Study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(2):201–10. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.02.170227 29535236


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11