The acceptability of asking women to delay removal of a long-acting reversible contraceptive to take part in a preconception weight loss programme: a mixed methods study using qualitative and routine data (Plan-it).
Contraception
Long-acting reversible contraceptives
Obesity
Preconception
Routine data
Weight loss
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Oct 2022
18 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
24
01
2022
accepted:
22
09
2022
entrez:
18
10
2022
pubmed:
19
10
2022
medline:
21
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Having a body mass index (BMI) which is classified as overweight (BMI ≥ 25) or obese (BMI ≥ 30) increases the risk of complications during pregnancy and labour. Weight-management interventions which target excess gestational weight gain during pregnancy have had limited success. Women who use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) are in contact with services as part of their preparation for conception, creating a potential opportunity to offer a preconception weight-loss intervention. The aims of this mixed methods study were to assess the acceptability and practicability of a weight-loss intervention which asked people to delay LARC removal in order to lose weight before conceiving. Routine UK NHS data were analysed to identify pathways from LARC removal to pregnancy. Qualitative surveys and advisory group discussions with service providers and LARC users with experience of being overweight were conducted and analysed thematically. Three hundred fifteen thousand seven hundred fifty-five UK women aged 16-48 years between 2009-2018 had at least one LARC-related event (e.g. insertion, removal) and 1.7% of those events were recorded as related to planning a pregnancy. BMI was included in 62% of women's records, with 54% of those BMI being classified as overweight or obese. Online surveys were completed by 100 healthcare practitioners and 243 LARC users. Stakeholders identified facilitators and barriers associated with the proposed intervention including sensitivities of discussing weight, service-user past experiences, practitioner skills, the setting and ethical implications of the proposed intervention. Although women and service providers recognised potential benefits, a preconception weight-loss intervention asking people to delay LARC removal posed many barriers, due mainly to the acceptability of such an intervention to women and healthcare practitioners. Weight-loss interventions that target the general population, together with a focus on improving public knowledge of preconception health, may be more acceptable than interventions which solely focus on LARC users. Many of the barriers identified, including communication, understanding and beliefs about weight and risk, appointment systems and the limitations of routine datasets also have relevance for any preconception weight-loss intervention. Work to improve routine datasets and reducing communication barriers to discussing weight are priorities. ISRCTN14733020 registered 10.05.2019.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Having a body mass index (BMI) which is classified as overweight (BMI ≥ 25) or obese (BMI ≥ 30) increases the risk of complications during pregnancy and labour. Weight-management interventions which target excess gestational weight gain during pregnancy have had limited success. Women who use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) are in contact with services as part of their preparation for conception, creating a potential opportunity to offer a preconception weight-loss intervention. The aims of this mixed methods study were to assess the acceptability and practicability of a weight-loss intervention which asked people to delay LARC removal in order to lose weight before conceiving.
METHODS
METHODS
Routine UK NHS data were analysed to identify pathways from LARC removal to pregnancy. Qualitative surveys and advisory group discussions with service providers and LARC users with experience of being overweight were conducted and analysed thematically.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three hundred fifteen thousand seven hundred fifty-five UK women aged 16-48 years between 2009-2018 had at least one LARC-related event (e.g. insertion, removal) and 1.7% of those events were recorded as related to planning a pregnancy. BMI was included in 62% of women's records, with 54% of those BMI being classified as overweight or obese. Online surveys were completed by 100 healthcare practitioners and 243 LARC users. Stakeholders identified facilitators and barriers associated with the proposed intervention including sensitivities of discussing weight, service-user past experiences, practitioner skills, the setting and ethical implications of the proposed intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although women and service providers recognised potential benefits, a preconception weight-loss intervention asking people to delay LARC removal posed many barriers, due mainly to the acceptability of such an intervention to women and healthcare practitioners. Weight-loss interventions that target the general population, together with a focus on improving public knowledge of preconception health, may be more acceptable than interventions which solely focus on LARC users. Many of the barriers identified, including communication, understanding and beliefs about weight and risk, appointment systems and the limitations of routine datasets also have relevance for any preconception weight-loss intervention. Work to improve routine datasets and reducing communication barriers to discussing weight are priorities.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN14733020 registered 10.05.2019.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36258184
doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-05077-0
pii: 10.1186/s12884-022-05077-0
pmc: PMC9580156
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contraceptive Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
778Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Open. 2013 Sep 13;3(9):e003389
pubmed: 24038008
PLoS One. 2014 May 14;9(5):e95132
pubmed: 24827704
JMIR Form Res. 2020 Feb 14;4(2):e16090
pubmed: 32130109
Clin Obes. 2018 Aug;8(4):244-249
pubmed: 29892993
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;44(3):827-36
pubmed: 26050254
Mhealth. 2018 Jul 06;4:24
pubmed: 30148139
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14;(7):CD010932
pubmed: 26171908
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Sep 26;9:546
pubmed: 30319539
Pediatrics. 2005 Mar;115(3):e290-6
pubmed: 15741354
Trials. 2016 Apr 27;17(1):215
pubmed: 27117703
Lancet. 2019 Jun 1;393(10187):2262-2271
pubmed: 31162084
BMC Obes. 2017 Feb 6;4:8
pubmed: 28191322
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019 Jul;28(7):923-933
pubmed: 31197928
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD009334
pubmed: 23440836
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Feb 12;20(1):105
pubmed: 32050934
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Sep;151 Suppl 1:16-36
pubmed: 32894590
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;224(1):99.e1-99.e14
pubmed: 32687819
Lancet. 2016 Nov 19;388(10059):2492-2500
pubmed: 27789061
Eur J Gen Pract. 2016;22(1):42-52
pubmed: 26610260
Obes Rev. 2015 Aug;16(8):621-38
pubmed: 26016557
BJOG. 2019 Feb;126(3):e62-e106
pubmed: 30465332
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;202(2):135.e1-8
pubmed: 19683692
BJOG. 2019 Jan;126(2):244-251
pubmed: 29896923
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Sep 26;17(1):324
pubmed: 28950838
BMC Public Health. 2020 Feb 14;20(1):235
pubmed: 32059663