Background: Limited surveillance of preconception care (PCC) impedes states' ability to monitor access and provision of quality PCC. In response, we describe PCC indicators and the evaluation process used to identify a set of PCC indicators for state use. Materials and Methods: The Surveillance and Research Workgroup and Clinical Workgroup of the National Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative used a systematic process to identify, evaluate, and prioritize PCC indicators from nationwide public health surveillance systems that Maternal and Child Health (MCH) programs can use for state-level surveillance using the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). For each indicator, we assessed target population, prevalence, measurement simplicity, data availability, clinical utility, and whether it was related to the 10 prioritized preconception health indicators. We also assessed relevance to clinical recommendations, Healthy People (HP)2020 objectives, and the National Quality Forum measures. Lastly, we considered input from stakeholders and subject matter experts. Results: Eighty potential PCC indicators were initially identified. After conducting evaluations, obtaining stakeholder input, and consulting with subject matter experts, the list was narrowed to 30 PCC indicators for states to consider using in their MCH programs to inform the need for new strategies and monitor programmatic activities. PRAMS is the data source for 27 of the indicators, and BRFSS is the data source for three indicators. Conclusions: The identification and evaluation of population-based PCC indicators that are available at the state level increase opportunities for state MCH programs to document, monitor, and address PCC in their locales.
Background: Limited surveillance of preconception care (PCC) impedes states' ability to monitor access and provision of quality PCC. In response, we describe PCC indicators and the evaluation process used to identify a set of PCC indicators for state use. Materials and Methods: The Surveillance and Research Workgroup and Clinical Workgroup of the National Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative used a systematic process to identify, evaluate, and prioritize PCC indicators from nationwide public health surveillance systems that Maternal and Child Health (MCH) programs can use for state-level surveillance using the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). For each indicator, we assessed target population, prevalence, measurement simplicity, data availability, clinical utility, and whether it was related to the 10 prioritized preconception health indicators. We also assessed relevance to clinical recommendations, Healthy People (HP)2020 objectives, and the National Quality Forum measures. Lastly, we considered input from stakeholders and subject matter experts. Results: Eighty potential PCC indicators were initially identified. After conducting evaluations, obtaining stakeholder input, and consulting with subject matter experts, the list was narrowed to 30 PCC indicators for states to consider using in their MCH programs to inform the need for new strategies and monitor programmatic activities. PRAMS is the data source for 27 of the indicators, and BRFSS is the data source for three indicators. Conclusions: The identification and evaluation of population-based PCC indicators that are available at the state level increase opportunities for state MCH programs to document, monitor, and address PCC in their locales.
Entities:
Keywords:
health care; indicators; preconception; surveillance; women's health
Authors: Danielle L Broussard; William B Sappenfield; Chris Fussman; Charlan D Kroelinger; Violanda Grigorescu Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2011-02
Authors: Kay Johnson; Samuel F Posner; Janis Biermann; José F Cordero; Hani K Atrash; Christopher S Parker; Sheree Boulet; Michele G Curtis Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-04-21
Authors: Marianne M Hillemeier; Carol S Weisman; Gary A Chase; Anne-Marie Dyer; Michele L Shaffer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Cheryl Robbins; Sheree L Boulet; Isabel Morgan; Denise V D'Angelo; Lauren B Zapata; Brian Morrow; Andrea Sharma; Charlan D Kroelinger Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2018-01-19
Authors: Cynthia Prather; Taleria R Fuller; William L Jeffries; Khiya J Marshall; A Vyann Howell; Angela Belyue-Umole; Winifred King Journal: Health Equity Date: 2018-09-24
Authors: Megan Scull Williams; Rachel Peragallo Urrutia; Scott A Davis; Daniel Frayne; Arthur Ollendorff; Melinda Ramage; Sarah Verbiest; Amina White Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Danielle A J M Schoenaker; Judith Stephenson; Anne Connolly; Sally Shillaker; Sarah Fishburn; Mary Barker; Keith M Godfrey; Nisreen A Alwan Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.034