Affiliation:
1. Independent Consultant on Preconception Health, Edinburgh, UK
2. Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
3. Director of Public Health, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Abstract
It is assumed that long-established research findings and internationally accepted evidence should, and will, be translated into policy and practice. Knowledge about what prevents harm and promotes health has, in fact, guided and resulted in numerous beneficial public health actions. However, such is not always the case. The authors examine three notable, and unwelcome, exceptions in the UK—all in the field of reproductive health and all focused on the period prior to pregnancy. The three examples of counterproductive inaction discussed are: fortifying flour with Vitamin B9 (folic acid); preventing foetal alcohol spectrum disorders; and reducing risks and better regulating a highly teratogenic medication (valproate). The adverse consequences, as well as the causes, of inaction are analysed for each example. Reasons for optimism, and recommendations for overcoming inaction, are also offered, in particular, greater priority should be accorded to preconception health, education and care.
Funder
Medical Research Council
Chief Scientist Office of Scotland
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献