Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Missing Link in Preconceptional Care: The Role of Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses an important element that is missing from the existing algorithm of preconception care, namely, comparative effectiveness research (CER). To our knowledge, there has been limited assessment of the comparative effectiveness of diverse interventions that promote preconception health, conditions under which these are most effective, for which particular populations, and their comparative costs. CER can improve the decision making process for the funding, development, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive preconception care programs, specifically by identifying the most effective interventions with acceptable costs to society. This paper will examine the framework behind preconception care and how the inclusion of comparative effectiveness research and evaluation into the existing algorithm of preconception care could foster improvement in maternal and child health. We discuss challenges and opportunities regarding the utilization of CER in the decision making process in preconception health, and finally, we provide recommendations for future directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson, K., et al. (2006). A report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 55(RR-6), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lu, M. C., et al. (2010). Closing the black-white gap in birth outcomes: A life-course approach. Ethnicity and Disease, 20(2), S2.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lu, M. C., et al. (2003). Preventing low birth weight: Is prenatal care the answer? Journal of Maternal Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 13(6), 362–380.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., & McEwen, B. S. (2009). Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities: Building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(21), 2252–2259.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barker, D. J. (1997). Fetal nutrition and cardiovascular disease in later life. British Medical Bulletin, 53(1), 96–108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. McEwen, B. S. (2006). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators: Central role of the brain. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 8(4), 367–381.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hillis, S. D., et al. (2004). The association between adverse childhood experiences and adolescent pregnancy, long-term psychosocial consequences, and fetal death. Pediatrics, 113(2), 320–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Posner, S. F., et al. (2006). The national summit on preconception care: A summary of concepts and recommendations. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10(5), 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jack, B. W., et al. (2008). The clinical content of preconception care: An overview and preparation of this supplement. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 199(6, Suppl. B), S266–S279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Atrash, H. K., et al. (2006). Preconception care for improving perinatal outcomes: The time to act. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10(5 Suppl), S3–S11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Postma, M. J., et al. (2002). Cost-effectiveness of periconceptional supplementation of folic acid. Pharmacy World & Science: PWS, 24(1), 8–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Scheffler, R. M., Feuchtbaum, L. B., & Phibbs, C. S. (1992). Prevention: The cost-effectiveness of the California Diabetes and Pregnancy Program. American Journal of Public Health, 82(2), 168–175.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lumley, J., et al. (2004). Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4), CD001055.

  14. Floyd, R. L., et al. (2005). Recognition and prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106(5), 1059–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ingersoll, K., et al. (2003). Reducing the risk of alcohol-exposed pregnancies: A study of a motivational intervention in community settings. Pediatrics, 111(5), 1131–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. (2009). Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Concato, J., et al. (2010). Comparative effectiveness research: What kind of studies do we need? Journal of Investigative Medicine, 58(6), 764–769.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gluck, M.E. & AcademyHealth. (2009). Incorporating costs into comparative effectiveness research; Available from http://www.academyhealth.org/files/publications/ResearchInsightsCER.pdf.

  19. Brown, M. M., et al. (2009). Comparative effectiveness: Its role in the healthcare system. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, 20(3), 188–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Daniels, N. (2000). Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal, 321(7272), 1300–1301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bm, M., et al. (2000). Evidence-based practice: The past, the present, and recommendations for the millennium. Pediatric nursing, 26, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: A fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 175–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hochman, M., & McCormick, D. (2010). Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(10), 951–958.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bourgeois, F. T., Murthy, S., & Mandl, K. D. (2012). Comparative effectiveness research: An empirical study of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. PLoS One, 7(1), e28820.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. H.R.1 111th Congress: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (2009). US Government Printing Office Web site. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2012.

  26. Selby, J. V., Beal, A. C., & Frank, L. (2012). The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) National Priorities for Research and Initial Research Agenda. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(15), 1583–1584.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Leonard, D. T. (2010). Comparative effectiveness and real-world evidence. The American Journal of Managed Care, 16(6), 410–411.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grosse, S. D., et al. (2006). The business case for preconception care: Methods and issues. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10(5 Suppl.), S93–S99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brook, R. H. (2011). Can the patient-centered outcomes research institute become relevant to controlling medical costs and improving value? Journal of the American Medical Association, 306(18), 2020–2021.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Neumann, P. J. (2005). Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve health care: opportunities and barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ubel, P. A. (2001). Pricing life: why it’s time for health care rationing. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Versteegh, M. M., et al. (2012). Condition-specific preference-based measures: Benefit or burden? Value in Health, 15(3), 504–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Strom, B. L. (2007). Methodologic challenges to studying patient safety and comparative effectiveness. Medical Care, 45(10 Suppl. 2), S13–S15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Institute of Medicine. (2007). Learning what works best: The nation’s need for evidence on comparative effectiveness in health care, in White Papers, Institute of Medicine.

  35. Hershey, J. C., et al. (2003). Incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios: Will physicians make a distinction? Risk Analysis, 23(1), 81–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rennie, D. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analyses: Making a pseudoscience legitimate. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26(2), 383–386.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Williams, A. (1992). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Is it ethical? Journal of Medical Ethics, 18(1), 7–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (2012). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: The PCORI perspective. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(15), 1636–1640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Muennig, P., & Woolf, S. H. (2007). Health and economic benefits of reducing the number of students per classroom in US primary schools. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 2020–2027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kroenke, K., et al. (2010). Training and career development for comparative effectiveness research workforce development: CTSA Consortium Strategic Goal Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Workgroup on Workforce Development. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(5), 258–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vanlare, J. M., Conway, P. H., & Rowe, J. W. (2011). Building Academic Health Centers’ capacity to shape and respond to comparative effectiveness research policy. Academic Medicine, 86(6), 689–694.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fagnan, L. J., et al. (2010). Linking practice-based research networks and Clinical and Translational Science Awards: New opportunities for community engagement by Academic Health Centers. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 476–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by funding from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) through a grant on “Clinically Enhanced Multi-Purpose Administrative Dataset for Comparative Effectiveness Research” (Award#: 1R0111HS019997).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no any conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maternal and Child Health Comparative Effectiveness Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 56, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Hamisu M. Salihu, Abraham Salinas & Mulubrhan Mogos

Authors
  1. Hamisu M. Salihu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abraham Salinas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mulubrhan Mogos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamisu M. Salihu.

Additional information

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the AHRQ.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salihu, H.M., Salinas, A. & Mogos, M. The Missing Link in Preconceptional Care: The Role of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Matern Child Health J 17, 776–782 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1056-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1056-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation