Aim: Validation of a self-administered Internet questionnaire for preconception risk assessment. Methods: Women with an appointment at the outpatient clinics for preconception care or fertility at the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam were requested to fill out the online questionnaire prior to attendance. Subsequently, the items of the questionnaire were verified by history taking during the first or next appointment. Agreement between the 2 screening methods (Internet vs. history taking) was calculated using Kappa statistic. Results: Most lifestyle variables, including smoking, alcohol, and dietary items, showed a good to high level of agreement when compared to the interview. Most medical history and obstetric history items also showed a good to high level of agreement. The use of over-the-counter drugs revealed a poor level of agreement (Kappa = 0.21). The items pertaining to women’s family history showed a reasonable level of agreement; however, the partner’s family history was unreliable and should be checked at the interview. Conclusion: The online questionnaire www.zwangerwijzer.nl is a useful tool for the identification of a number of potential risk factors in the preconception care setting and was found to be a an efficient and clear screening instrument by the majority of women. However, additional history taking by trained professionals is necessary to verify several items and to further explore identified risk factors for an adverse pregnancy outcome.

Keywords:
Internet-administered assessment, Online questionnaire, Preconception care, Preconception counseling, Preconception screening, Risk assessment, Validation
1.
Cefalo RC, Moos KM: Preconceptional Health Care. A Practical Guide. St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book, 1995.
2.
Hollingsworth DR, Jones OW, Resnik R: Expanded care in obstetrics for the 1980s: preconception and early postconception counseling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;149:811–814.
3.
Health Council of the Netherlands. Preconception care: a good beginning. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2007; publication No. 2007/19.
4.
de Weerd S, van der Bij AK, Cikot RJ, Braspenning JC, Braat DD, Steegers EA: Preconception care: a screening tool for health assessment and risk detection. Prev Med 2002;34:505–511.
5.
Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
6.
Spek V, Nyklícek I, Cuijpers P, Pop V: Internet administration of the Edinburgh Depression Scale. J Affect Disord 2008;106:301–305.
7.
Vallejo MA, Jordán CM, Díaz MI, Comeche MI, Otega J: Psychological assessment via the Internet: a reliability and validity study of online (vs. paper-and-pencil) versions of the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) and the Symptoms Check-List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). J Med Internet Res 2007;9:e2.
8.
Coles ME, Cook LM, Blake TR: Assessing compulsive symptoms and cognitions on the Internet: evidence for the comparability of paper and Internet administration. Behav Res Ther 2007;45:2232–2240.
9.
Hussain S, Taylor M, Waltermaurer E, McCauley J, Ford DE, Campbell JC, McNutt LA: Computer-administered screening of reproductive-aged women for diabetes risk in primary care settings, feasibility and acceptability of such screening, and validity of risk assessments based on self-reporting weight. Prev Chron Dis 2007;4:A54.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.