Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7516, USA.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010 Mar;19(3):561-7. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1411.
Interest in preconceptional healthcare was advanced by release of the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Select Panel on Preconception Care in 2006. With increasing interest, apprehension surfaced from healthcare professionals, women, and the public at large. The most common themes of concerns are that an emphasis on preconception care is pronatalist, unnecessary, exclusive of men, framed too narrowly, doomed to failure because of competing clinical demands and influences, and involves a vocabulary that is meaningless to the public. This article explores the themes and argues that none of them are fatal to moving forward with a preconception agenda-rather, they should stimulate thoughtful response, careful framing, and vigilance for unintended consequences related to restructuring the basic perinatal prevention paradigm from a prenatal care approach to a women's wellness model.
对孕前保健的兴趣是由疾病控制和预防中心 (CDC) 及其孕前保健选择小组于 2006 年发布的建议推动的。随着兴趣的增加，医疗保健专业人员、妇女和公众普遍感到担忧。最常见的担忧主题是，强调孕前保健是优生的、不必要的、排斥男性的、框架过于狭隘的、由于竞争的临床需求和影响注定会失败的，并且涉及到公众无法理解的词汇。本文探讨了这些主题，并认为它们都不会阻碍推进孕前议程——相反，它们应该激发深思熟虑的回应，精心构建框架，并警惕与将基本围产期预防范式从产前保健方法重新构建为妇女健康模型相关的意外后果。
