Article Text

Download PDFPDF
General practice preconception care invitations: a qualitative study of women’s acceptability and preferences
    1. 1Department of General Practice, Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    2. 2University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    1. Correspondence to Nishadi Nethmini Withanage; nishadi.withanage{at}monash.edu

    Abstract

    Background In general practice, primary care providers can potentially use electronic medical records (EMRs) to identify and invite reproductive-aged women with preconception health risk factors to increase their engagement in preconception care (PCC). However, the acceptability of receiving PCC invitations and women’s preferences about the invitation process are poorly understood. This study aims to investigate women’s acceptability and preferences for receiving PCC invitations from general practice settings.

    Methods Participants were recruited via convenience, purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom from August until November 2023. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and inductive reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken.

    Results PCC invitations sent from general practice are acceptable if the language is sensitive and non-stigmatising. Text or email invitations detailing the importance and scope of the PCC consultation were preferred, after discussing reproductive intentions with a general practitioner or practice nurse. Women with preconception health risk factors or those actively trying to conceive were more likely to engage in PCC. Key strategies to enhance PCC engagement include advertising in waiting rooms, introducing PCC in new patient registration forms, and integrating PCC into holistic care.

    Conclusion Using EMRs to identify and invite women with preconception health risk factors to increase their engagement in PCC is generally acceptable. Invitations sent via text messages or emails are preferred. It is crucial to use respectful and appropriate language to avoid stigmatising or offending women, particularly those with infertility issues, those who have completed their families, or those who do not wish to have children.

    • general practice
    • family planning services
    • health education
    • Patient Participation
    • Reproductive Health Services

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @NishadiWith, @Sharon_MJames

    • Contributors NNW, SJ, JB, KB and DM designed this study. NNW and JW coded the interview transcripts. NNW led the manuscript writing with input from SJ, JB, KB, JW and DM. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. NNW is responsible for the overall content of this manuscript as the guarantor. Chat GPT was used very occasionally to improve language.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests KB, an author of this manuscript, is an associate editor at BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.