Skip to main content
Download PDF

Exploring online reproductive health promotion in Canada: a focus on behavioral and environmental influences from a sex and gender perspective

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1647 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Reproductive health promotion can enable early mitigation of behavioral and environmental risk factors associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, while optimizing health of women + (all genders that can gestate a fetus) and babies. Although the biological and social influences of partners on pregnancy are well established, it is unknown whether online Canadian government reproductive health promotion also targets men and partners throughout the reproductive lifespan.

Methods

Reproductive health promotion, designed for the general public, was assessed in a multi-jurisdictional sample of Canadian government (federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal) and select non-governmental organization (NGO) websites. For each website, information related to environmental and behavioral influences on reproductive health (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum) was evaluated based on comprehensiveness, audience-specificity, and scientific quality.

Results

Government and NGO websites provided sparse reproductive health promotion for partners which was generally limited to preconception behavior topics with little coverage of environmental hazard topics. For women + , environmental and behavioral influences on reproductive health were well promoted for pregnancy, with content gaps for preconception and postpartum stages.

Conclusion

Although it is well established that partners influence pregnancy outcomes and fetal/infant health, Canadian government website promotion of partner-specific environmental and behavioral risks was limited. Most websites across jurisdictions promoted behavioral influences on pregnancy, however gaps were apparent in the provision of health information related to environmental hazards. As all reproductive stages, including preconception and postpartum, may be susceptible to environmental and behavioral influences, online health promotion should use a sex- and gender-lens to address biological contributions to embryo, fetal and infant development, as well as contributions of partners to the physical and social environments of the home.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Reproductive health promotion broadly encompasses interventions that equip individuals with the knowledge, skills, and autonomy to make decisions regarding their sexual, preconception, antenatal and postpartum health [1, 2]. Reproductive health promotion improves pregnancy outcomes, reduces concurrent diseases, and optimizes perinatal outcomes through education and strategies to manage health risk factors [2,3,4,5]. Effective reproductive health promotion policies and interventions are inclusive, multisectoral, evidence-based [6], and integrate both sex and gender perspectives into practice [7]. Health promotion for fertility and pregnancy aims to ameliorate reproductive tract disease or dysfunction with emphasis on the biology of sex [1, 2]. By incorporating a gender-based lens, the social, environmental and behavioral influences on reproductive health, including access to health services and autonomy for reproductive decision-making, can be addressed by health promotion [7]. Biological, environmental and psychological modifiers of sex-specific factors relating to gamete quality and the capacity to conceive, gestate and birth a child are particularly relevant during preconception [8] and throughout pregnancy [4, 5]. As gender influences health behaviors, coping strategies, and health services uptake, health promotion interventions tailored to reflect such gendered realities are recommended to redress health inequities [7]. Despite more recent advances to recognize the lived experiences of different genders in pregnancy/parenthood [9], men + (people of all genders who produce sperm) exhibit significant fertility knowledge gaps [10,11,12], suggested to be related to the exclusion of men + from reproductive health initiatives [12, 13].

Preconception, pregnancy and postpartum stages are ideal for reproductive health promotion as modification of high-risk behaviors and mitigation of environmental exposures can optimize pregnancy outcomes and infant health [3, 5, 14]. Exposures to chemical, physical, and biological environmental hazards may occur through leisure activities, hobbies, home renovations and in workplaces, including healthcare, personal care services, manufacturing, and agriculture [15]. Environmental and occupational exposures may impair sperm quality, with chemicals, solvents, endocrine disrupters, heavy metals and radiation established to induce DNA damage or epigenetic modifications [13, 16,17,18]. Sperm quality can also be adversely affected by preconception health behaviors including alcohol consumption, use of illicit drugs and marijuana, tobacco use, and poor nutrition practices contributing to obesity [5, 13, 19, 20]. During pregnancy and postpartum, partners, biological/non-biological co-parents and/or co-habitating partners, contribute behavioral influences and other factors which comprise the social environment [13, 21]. Partners can influence the participation of women + in healthy and safe behaviors, prenatal care practices, breastfeeding engagement, and emotional/mental health [13, 21, 22].

Despite the established biological and social influences of partners on perinatal outcomes and infant health, reproductive health promotion has, to date, predominantly targeted women + [2, 4, 5, 13]. Preconception and pregnancy guidelines recommend mitigation of behavioral risks through a healthy diet, folic acid supplementation, regular physical activity, appropriate gestational weight gain, and avoidance of environmental exposures [3,4,5,6, 8, 23,24,25,26]. Postpartum health promotion focusses on breastfeeding/chestfeeding and parent-infant attachment [22, 24, 25]. Management of behavioral and environmental risks, together with engagement in healthy behaviors, can optimize reproductive health of both women + and their pregnancy outcomes.

Evidence-based, inclusive reproductive health promotion emphasizing modifiable risks to fertility and pregnancy can be effective tools to improve health and pregnancy outcomes [3,4,5,6, 27]. About one-third of Canadian women + attend prenatal classes, most commonly primiparous women + , delivered by prenatal educators in hospitals or in community settings [28], and generally hosted by local public health units [26]. Like many prospective parents around the world [29,30,31], Canadians [32, 33] identify the Internet as the preferred channel of reproductive health information. We have previously reported that Canadian federal and provincial/territorial government agencies provide online promotion of essential prenatal health topics [26], but it is unknown to what extent such reproductive health promotion incorporates a sex- and gender-based lens. We used a multi-jurisdictional approach to evaluate whether Canadian government and select non-government organization (NGO)-hosted websites provide audience-specific (women + , partners) and reproductive stage-specific (preconception, pregnancy, and postpartum) health promotion.

Methodology

Sample

Health care in Canada is publicly funded through both federal and provincial/territorial taxation, with multi-jurisdictional responsibilities for priority setting and service delivery. Each of Canada’s ten provinces and three territories, and their respective organization of municipal/regional health authorities, is responsible for delivery of health care services [34]. Canadian government website-hosted reproductive health promotion was evaluated using a multi-jurisdictional approach which included assessment of one federal, all 13 provincial/territorial, and 9 municipal government organization websites [35, 36] (Table 1). Selection of municipal websites emphasized provincial/territorial capital cities and large urban cities. Five Canadian-based, credible NGO websites were purposively selected based on the provision of freely accessible health promotion for individuals of reproductive age, and a stated purpose to provide reproductive and/or parental health content (Table 1).

Table 1 Sample of Canadian government-hosted and NGO-hosted websites
Full size table

Data collection

Data was collected between August 2020 and February 2021. Websites were evaluated through (1) general exploration of each website and (2) keyword search. Health promotion topics/keyword search terms (Table 2) were selected based on reproductive health promotion best practices [2,3,4, 25]. The extracted data corpus included reproductive health recommendations, guidelines, and resources that were publicly available, targeted a lay audience, and employed plain language. Websites hosted by agencies in the Francophone province of Quebec (Government of Quebec, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, City of Montreal) were evaluated in both French and English. Ethics approval was not obtained since all health promotion information collected was publicly available.

Table 2 Health promotion topics/keywords
Full size table

Evaluation methodology

Evaluation of websites was conducted by a customized evaluation of website health information adapted from literature [37, 38] and informed by qualitative thematic content analysis [39], used previously in the assessment of prenatal guidance documents [6] and online prenatal health promotion [26]. Websites were evaluated individually for selected health promotion topics (Table 2) based on (1) reproductive stage (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum); (2) audience (women + , partners); and (3) scientific quality of information. Assessment of health promotion for each reproductive stage was determined by explicit stage mention or by related terms (e.g. preconception- gametes, sperm, egg, fertility; pregnancy- fetus; postpartum- new parent, neonate/baby, breastfeeding). A sex- and gender-based lens was used to evaluate the biological and social contributions of “partners”- which included biological co-parents (men +) and/or non-biological co-parents of all genders. Audience-specific health promotion related to (1) women + and (2) partners, was scored as 0-the website did not provide information related to the topic, or 1-the website described the topic comprehensively, and included explanation/definition of the topic and relevance to reproductive health. Available health promotion content was further examined to determine scientific quality. Good scientific quality was characterized as health promotion content with reference(s) to government organizations, credible medical associations, and/or scientific literature. Scientific quality was scored as 0-information did not include scientific sources, 1-information included one or more scientific reference(s). Finally, environmental and behavioral ‘breadth scores’ were determined for each jurisdiction. Breadth scores were calculated as the total number of topics promoted by each website for environmental health promotion (described throughout as promotion of the reproductive risks associated with the following environmental hazards: air quality, radiation, workplace exposures, secondhand smoke, toxoplasmosis, BPA, lead, mercury, organic solvents, and pesticides; maximum score 10). Website breadth scores for promotion of behavioral influences on reproductive health (alcohol, cannabis, tobacco use, drugs/medications, weight, nutrition, physical activity, vitamins, folic acid, STIs, and vaccinations; maximum score 11) were similarly calculated. Average breadth scores were then calculated for each jurisdiction and presented as a proportion of the maximum score possible for (1) reproductive stage (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum), and (2) audience (women + , partners). Websites were independently evaluated by two female health sciences researchers (ARR and TDD), with final scores determined by consensus.

Results

Promotion of environmental health topics

Health promotion of environmental health topics (Table 2) was evaluated for each website and considered reproductive stage, audience, and scientific quality of information. For partner-specific environmental health promotion, evaluated websites generally targeted the biological co-parent in the preconception period and emphasized biological risks to fertility (Table 3). There was little recognition that environmental hazard exposures not only reduce sperm quality but have the potential to also impair fetal development through epigenetic mechanisms. Workplace exposures, hobbies, and leisure activities of partners may inadvertently increase domestic environmental hazards, thereby contributing to environmental risks to pregnancy, and neonates, however this was not addressed by websites in our sample. Language was typically gender binary, referring to “men/fathers”, and “women/mothers”. Few websites provided comprehensive environmental health promotion for women + during preconception and postpartum, with greater, if inconsistent, promotion of pregnancy-specific environmental health information.

Table 3 Environmental health promotion excerpts
Full size table

Environmental health promotion to partners

Partner-specific environmental health promotion was limited for all reproductive stages, particularly in the context of pregnancy and postpartum (Fig. 1). Preconception-related environmental health promotion generally discussed the biological impacts of environmental hazard exposures on fertility. A third (33%) of municipal government websites promoted preconception-related information on lead and workplace exposures. Breadth of environmental health topics for all reproductive stages was limited, especially for pregnancy and postpartum (Fig. 2). Partner-specific environmental health content infrequently included scientific sources (Fig. 3A).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Environmental health promotion for men + /partners. Shown is environmental health information by provincial/territorial government-, municipal government- and NGO-hosted websites for each reproductive stage (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum), targeted to men + /partners. The federal government promoted two (20%) environmental health topics for preconception individuals and no topics for individuals during the pregnancy and postpartum stages. n = sample size of websites. BPA-bisphenol A. NGO- non-governmental organizations

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Jurisdictional breadth of environmental health promotion. Breadth scores, the total number of environmental health topics (air quality, radiation, workplace exposures, secondhand smoke, toxoplasmosis, BPA, lead, mercury, organic solvents, and pesticides-maximum score 10) promoted by each website, were averaged for each jurisdiction and presented as a proportion of the maximum score possible. n = sample size of websites. NGO- non-governmental organizations

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Science quality of health promotion. Scientific quality of reproductive health promotion, targeted to men + /partners or women + , with emphasis on A. Environmental health influences, B. Behavioral health influences was determined. Health promotion scientific quality is presented as the proportion of website health promotion topics (see Figs. 1 and 2- environment; and Figs. 5 and 6- behavioral) attributed to scientific sources. n = sample size of websites. NGO- non-governmental organizations

Full size image

Environmental health promotion to women + 

Environmental health promotion in the context of pregnancy was robust, with several websites within each jurisdiction targeting information to pregnant people (Fig. 4). However, environmental health information for women + during preconception and postpartum was lacking. The federal government promoted 70% of pregnancy-related environmental health topics (Fig. 2). Likewise, over half of provincial/territorial government websites promoted information on radiation, workplace exposures, secondhand smoke, and toxoplasmosis for pregnant people. Over half of NGO websites (60%) provided comprehensive pregnancy-specific information on environmental health in the workplace and secondhand smoke for women + .

Fig. 4
figure 4

Environmental health promotion for women + . Shown is the environmental health promotion, targeting women + , by provincial/territorial government-, municipal government- and NGO-hosted websites for each reproductive stage (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum). The federal government promoted six (60%) preconception, seven (70%) pregnancy, and two (20%) postpartum-specific environmental health topics n = sample size of websites. BPA-bisphenol A. NGO- non-governmental organizations

Full size image

For preconception-related environmental health promotion, other than the federal government website which promoted 60% of topics (Fig. 2), no jurisdiction provided significant content breadth. The most common postpartum topic discussed across jurisdictions was secondhand smoke, discussed by 62% of provincial/territorial government and 40% of NGO websites (Fig. 2). Gaps in other postpartum environmental risk topics were evident. Although some environmental health promotion in the context of preconception (60%) and pregnancy (50%) provided by the federal government was attributed to credible scientific/health authorities (Fig. 3A), little environmental health content provided by the other government/NGO websites included citations.

Promotion of behavioral health topics

We evaluated online health promotion addressing behavioral influences (Table 2) in our sample of websites for each reproductive stage, target audience, noting the scientific quality of information. Websites presented behavioral influences on reproductive health using typically gender-binary language, with content emphasizing women + . Although insufficient, when present, partner-specific behavioral health promotion generally targeted the biological co-parent (i.e. men and fathers) during preconception, with even fewer websites providing pregnancy and postpartum content. Most websites across jurisdictions provided behavioral health promotion targeting women + , emphasizing the biological impacts of behavioral factors on fertility, pregnancy, and fetal/infant development, including breastfeeding as a potential route of exposure (Table 4).

Table 4 Behavioral health promotion excerpts
Full size table

Behavioral health promotion to partners

For each jurisdiction, less than 40% websites provided behavioral health promotion for partners in the context of preconception (Fig. 5), whereas 60% of NGO websites described benefits of nutrition and physical activity for partner health. Pregnancy-related behavioral health information tailored to partners was particularly limited, with slight improvement, particularly by NGO websites, in the context of postpartum. Partner behavioral health promotion breadth scores were less than 30% for all reproductive stages (Fig. 6), with generally poor scientific referencing across jurisdictions (Fig. 3B), except for the federal government’s provision of partner-specific preconception content, with 45% of topics attributed to scientific sources.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Behavioral health promotion for men + /partners. Shown is the proportion of environmental health information, targeted to men + /partners, provided by provincial/territorial government-, municipal government-l, and NGO-hosted websites for each reproductive stage (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum). The federal government promoted five (45%) preconception, one (9%) pregnancy, and one (9%) postpartum-related environmental health topics. n = sample size of websites. STIs- sexually transmitted infections, NGO- non-governmental organizations

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Jurisdictional breadth of behavioral health promotion. Breadth scores, the total number of behavior topics (alcohol, cannabis, tobacco use, drugs/medications, weight, nutrition, physical activity, vitamins, folic acid, sexually transmitted infections, and vaccinations -maximum score 11), promoted by each website, were averaged for each jurisdiction, and presented as a proportion of maximum possible score. n = sample size of websites. NGO- non-governmental organizations

Full size image

Behavioral health promotion to women + 

Provincial/territorial government websites generally addressed behavioral health promotion targeted to conceiving, pregnant, and postpartum people, in contrast to municipal government websites in our sample (Figs. 6, and 7). Health behaviors during pregnancy were comprehensively discussed by most provincial/territorial government and NGO websites. Over 80% of provincial/territorial government websites promoted pregnancy-specific information on alcohol, cannabis, tobacco use, drugs/medication, and vitamins (Fig. 7). The provincial/territorial government and NGO websites generally provided postpartum-related behavioral health information. Most provincial/territorial government websites (77%) promoted information on alcohol risks, while 80% of NGO websites provided comprehensive information on nutrition for postpartum women + .

Fig. 7
figure 7

Behavioral health promotion targeting women + . Shown is the proportion of environmental health information, targeting women + , promoted by the provincial/territorial government-, municipal government- and NGO websites for each reproductive stage (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum). The federal government promoted all topics for preconception individuals (100%), and most topics for individuals during pregnancy (91%) and postpartum (55%). n = sample size (websites per jurisdiction). STIs- sexually transmitted infections, NGO- non-governmental organizations

Full size image

In terms of breadth of behavioral health topics, the federal government promoted preconception-specific information on all topics of interest, and most of the topics during pregnancy (Fig. 6). The provincial/territorial government websites exhibited greatest breadth scores during pregnancy, with all jurisdictions dropping below 50% for postpartum content. For scientific quality of behavioral health promotion, in general, the federal government provided scientifically referenced- content, particularly in preconception and pregnancy, otherwise, scientific quality of behavioral health promotion was inconsistent (Fig. 3B).

Discussion

Canadian government websites generally targeted biological risks of environmental and behavioral factors to women + , typically using gender binary language, with limited partner-specific reproductive health promotion. When present, available partner-specific environmental and behavioral health promotion usually targeted the biological co-parent before conception and emphasized biological risks to fertility. In contrast, robust pregnancy-related environmental and behavioral health promotion was generally provided for women + . Few Canadian government websites presented environmental health promotion during preconception and postpartum stages. Reproductive health promotion targeting women + in the context of preconception and postpartum, emphasized biological risks to fertility, perinatal health, fetal/infant development, and breastfeeding.

Reproductive health promotion- men + , partners

Biologically, preconception behavioral risks and exposures to environmental hazards pose the greatest threat to sperm quality [8, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21]. In our sample, few websites provided preconception-related reproductive health promotion for partners, with minimal emphasis on environmental hazards. Although most high-risk behavioral behaviors are modifiable, behavioral change requires time, and can be greatly aided by interventions, access to healthcare and other supports [40]. As spermatogenesis cycles are about 74 days, behavioral changes and mitigation strategies to reduce workplace or environmental exposures would need to be implemented several months prior to conception [16, 20]. Further, given that many high-risk behaviors including unsafe sexual practices, and use of recreational drug, alcohol, or tobacco are often concurrent [41], behavioral risks may contribute additively to sperm quality and paternal determinants of fetal development [42].

Whereas the health behaviors of the biological co-parent are important before conception, during pregnancy and postpartum, partners, biological or non-biological parents or co-habitating partners, may provide support, can assist in pregnancy-related decisions, but may also exert behavioral and social control [13]. Partners may influence the perinatal domestic environment through their choices of consumer products, hobbies and behaviors which contribute secondhand tobacco or cannabis smoke, and through workplace-home transfer of occupational chemicals and other exposures [43]. Canadian government websites in our sample generally limited behavioral health promotion to preconception guidance for partners to optimize sperm quality and did not discuss partner contributions and influences during pregnancy and postpartum. Due to the concordant nature of health behaviours among co-habitating partners [44], improved general health practices in partners are important to the health and wellbeing of women + and their offspring. Partners can influence the health practices of the pregnant person and subsequent fetal/infant health and development [13, 44]. Nutrition and behavioral education interventions that involve partners can improve the overall household nutrition knowledge and practices [45, 46]. It is increasingly apparent that health promotion content on nutrition, vitamin supplementation, and physical activity in the context of healthy weight maintenance and pregnancy-related outcomes is beneficial for all members of the household regardless of reproductive stage.

It is well established that men + exhibit gaps in fertility awareness [10,11,12], partly because reproductive health promotion has historically targeted women + [3, 4, 27]. Strategies to improve baseline reproductive health knowledge, including general fertility and health risk information may begin with a multifaceted approach to reproductive health education. As many unhealthy behaviors established as risks to fertility begin at a young age [23], school-based sexual health education is a strategy to incorporate reproductive anatomy, behavioral and sexual risk reduction [47], consistent with the recommendations for Dutch men + to participate in a fertility awareness campaign [48]. Strategies to encourage men + to have a reproductive life plan, including options for contraception, STI risk reduction, and behavioral risk management can be incorporated in general healthcare visits [13]. Regular engagement with healthcare providers can establish the basis for ongoing reproductive healthcare discussions, including risks, concerns, and options for fertility enhancement or preservation [13]. Inclusion of partners in reproductive life decisions, at the invitation of women + [2], can promote mutual responsibility and strategies for behavioral changes, such as reductions in smoking and alcohol intake [49].

Understanding and evaluating health literacy in men + is recognized as a significant limitation to the health communication field, with overemphasis on the acquisition of information, rather than an understanding of health messaging demonstrated, in part, by changes to behavioral practices [50]. Generally, health promotion targeting men + should use accessible lay language, relate to their everyday experiences, at the same time recognizing the gender and cultural heterogeneity of this population [50]. Uptake of health promotion messaging may be fostered by framing engagement in reproductive health as a positive construct, emblematic of being socially responsible, gender-equitable, and a caring, involved partner, while addressing men’s reproductive-related fears, and concerns [51]. Engaging men + in sexual and reproductive health interventions should be framed using a sexual rights-based approach, that is inclusive, non-discriminatory, promotes autonomy and agency but also challenges stereotypical gender norms [51].

Reproductive health promotion- women + 

Across our sample of evaluated websites, environmental health promotion targeted to conceiving women + was sparse, with improved promotion of specific topics (radiation, work exposures, secondhand smoke, toxoplasmosis) during pregnancy. As almost half of pregnancies are unplanned [28, 52], ongoing awareness of environmental health risks can empower some individuals to employ the precautionary principle to avoid unnecessary exposures [53], recognizing that not all communities have equal access to environmental justice [14]. Preconception counselling in antenatal care settings can enhance pregnancy-related knowledge, increase awareness, and improve self-efficacy for women + [54], however it remains challenging to increase reproductive health awareness in individuals with no explicit parenthood intentions [27] . Although the most trusted source of health information for Canadian women + is their physician [28], environmental health is recognized as a training gap for most healthcare professionals [55,56,57], further demonstrating the need for credible, evidence-based environmental health promotion. Ideally, occupational risks should be addressed by occupational health and safety legislation and workplace policies, however implementation of relevant safety measures is often ineffective, requiring employees to assume personal responsibility for the mitigation of reproductive risks [58]. Improving general environmental health literacy may help safeguard reproductive health at work and at home [33, 58], supported by environmental health and safety policies.

Provincial/territorial government and NGO websites promoted alcohol abstinence and folic acid supplementation to women + who are pregnant or attempting to conceive, with most organizations discussing a substantial number of behavioral topics during pregnancy. Preconception behavioral risks including smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, STI and substance abuse are well established to adversely effect oocyte quality, fallopian tube patency, and epigenetic reprogramming at conception [3,4,5, 18, 23, 40], as well as teratogenic effects on fetal development [24, 59]. Smoking cessation, for both partners, not only improves gamete quality, but reduces fetal and neonatal exposures to secondhand smoke [60]. Overweight and obesity are recognized risk factors for infertility, perinatal complications, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and are often concurrent with other reproductive risks related to diet and sedentary behaviors [61]. Consistent with established guidelines for physical activity during pregnancy [62], government websites in our analysis promoted physical activity and nutrition through all three reproductive stages. Although pregnancy health promotion often reflected guidelines for appropriate gestational weight gain [63], risks of preconception obesity and interpregnancy weight instability on adverse pregnancy outcomes were not addressed [61]. Multidisciplinary health promotion of weight management, nutrition and physical activity may be beneficial, supported by government messaging, public health, primary healthcare and allied health professionals [52].

The postpartum period is mentally, physically, and emotionally complex, involving physical recovery from pregnancy and the competing demands of life with an infant [64]. Americans [65] and Canadians [28] predominantly give birth in hospitals, attended by obstetricians, resulting in a marked decline in reproductive health promotion to postpartum women + [64, 66]. Online Canadian government postpartum health promotion for women + emphasized breastfeeding transmission risks associated drugs, alcohol, and tobacco consumption, along with mental health and quality of life benefits of nutrition, and physical activity. With the exception of secondhand smoke exposure, our sample of websites provided limited information related to environmental exposures, indicating a significant gap. Environmental health promotion interventions can include strategies to reduce environmental exposures associated with at-home hobbies and consumer products but should also address the take-home pathway- workplace chemical residue on clothing, shoes, and equipment [43].

Reproductive health promotion best practices

The Internet is a well-established, information channel that can be used to provide discrete and accessible reproductive health information that can mitigate barriers to healthcare access including stigma, resource limitations, childcare and time constraints [29, 33, 47, 67]. Ideally, online reproductive health information is evidence-based, comprehensive, and inclusive [26], however for the lay public, finding credible, evidence-based reproductive health information can be challenging [68], particularly given the explosion of reproductive-related myths and social-media fueled misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic [69]. Governments collect health surveillance data, develop guidelines and population-based recommendations, and serve as a reference sources for health care professionals [70], supporting reproductive health promotion initiatives. Government websites evaluated here, generally provided credible reproductive health information, though rarely attributed to scientific sources. Content gaps, particularly for men + and partners, prevent these websites from serving as a comprehensive repository of evidence-based reproductive health promotion for the Canadian population. Considerable variability was noted among and between jurisdictions, with the federal government, followed by provincial/territorial government-hosted websites consistently providing a substantial breadth of reproductive health promotion in comparison to the municipal jurisdiction. This may be explained by differences in regional priorities, and the management and financing of local health units/regional health authorities by provincial/territorial governments [34]. Regardless of residency, all Canadians, and indeed global Internet users, can benefit from online reproductive health promotion by government websites, which may be supplemented by information from NGO agencies. Though not reviewed here, the multiple modalities of government reproductive health promotion strategies also include social media, interjurisdictional transfer payments to support regional/local programming- both online and in person- and healthcare delivery [34]. Ultimately, passive consumption of online reproductive health information is best complemented by active engagement in reproductive health programming such as prenatal classes, breastfeeding support groups, and both primary and specialized healthcare, recognizing some groups are traditionally absent from such interventions and require targeted outreach [6]. Such reproductive health programming necessitates local, community service delivery which may involve municipal or regional health units, as well as NGO agencies [47]. NGO agencies and community groups, such as Dad Central, can offer specialized, tailored reproductive health promotion for specific audiences, building on stakeholder involvement and community relationships [6].

Although pregnant and prospective parents are typically avid consumers of reproductive health information, preconceiving individuals who may not have explicit parenthood intentions or concerns about fertility are challenging to target [27]. From a public health perspective, mitigation of the modifiable risks to reproductive health also improves general health outcomes for all genders. Health promotion targeted to specific life stages, from adolescence through the life course, may be recognized as individually relevant and better achieve relevant behavior modifications [27]. Given that many health behaviors are well established years prior to most individuals’ attempts to conceive, early reproductive health promotion through school-based sexual health education would both optimize public health and support healthy pregnancy outcomes [27, 71]. Reproductive health promotion should be clearly framed in the context of optimizing fertility and pregnancy/child health outcomes, and should address topics specific to reproductive health including STI risk reduction, folic acid supplementation, and avoidance of teratogenic exposures, in addition to general public health messaging [4, 71].

Online health promotion has the potential to resonate with specific audiences such as those typically absent from the healthcare system—men + , rural/remote communities, and populations marginalized by racism, colonialism or xenophobia [6, 26]. Although mass health promotion is effective to broadly communicate to the public, ideally health communication messages are relevant, evoke an emotional response, and are tailored to reflect the realities of specific groups [72, 73]. We have previously reported that Canadian provincial/territorial government websites lack specialized prenatal health content for Indigenous, sexually-diverse and immigrant parents [26], although this was not part of the current analysis. We did, however, note that much of the health promotion messaging provided by websites in our sample used gender-binary language, typically women/men, mothers/fathers. In the context of health promotion, gender-binary terms and pronouns may erase the experiences of non-binary, transgender, and gender-diverse individuals as partners, parents, and conceiving/pregnant people [74]. It must also be considered that gender-neutral or ‘desexed’ terminology may obfuscate health promotion messaging, particularly for people with low literacy, limited education, conservative cultural/religious backgrounds, or those belonging to linguistic minority communities [75]. As health promotion aims to educate and increase awareness, reproductive health promotion should strive to balance effective and clear communication of biological sex-based risks, along with social, environmental, and behavioral risks that may be gendered with an inclusive approach that fosters health equity.

Biological sex differences, together with gendered behaviors, coping strategies and uptake of health resources, support the need to target reproductive health communications to specific communities [7, 13]. However, perhaps more importantly, by exclusively targeting reproductive health promotion to women + , structural and social inequities in health and healthcare are perpetuated. A sample of American-hosted preconception care websites, evaluated in 2015, used biomedical language to predominantly emphasize women’s preconception biological risk mitigation [76]. These websites provided only limited content related to men’s contributions to biological and social risks to reproductive health [76], consistent with our assessment of Canadian websites. Gaps in preconception discourse relating to men + not only contribute to reproductive knowledge gaps, but also contribute to the individual and social expectations that place exclusive responsibility for healthy reproduction solely on women + [76, 77]. It is anticipated that by addressing reproductive health knowledge gaps in men + , this will lead to improved participation in preconception care, a greater sense of shared responsibility, and a greater capacity to provide emotional and social support as a partner and parent [13, 77]. Consequently, calls for gender-transformative health promotion require a consideration of gender-based risks to health, moving beyond biological risks [78, 79], and recognition that co-habitating partners, including non-biological parents, may contribute significantly to the social and environmental determinants of pregnancy and postpartum, including infant development.

Limitations

Our multi-jurisdictional, geographically diverse sampling strategy is a distinct strength of this study. We also strived to recognize the individual contributions of biological (gametes, uterus) and social (concordant health behaviors, reciprocal environmental exposures) determinants of each reproductive stage. An inclusive gender lens was used to recognize the differential contributions of biological and non-biological parents, as well as co-habitating partners. We also acknowledge several important limitations in our study. The evaluated websites cannot be generalized to all reproductive health promotion in Canada. Similarly, websites were evaluated between April 2020 and February 2021 and represent a ‘snapshot’ of reproductive health promotion available online in Canada at that time. Websites evaluated here will continuously improve and update reproductive health information, recommendations, and guidelines as the field evolves. We also acknowledge that the scope of our analysis was limited to government websites and that we did not assess complimentary health promotion channels or programming that may be provided by these organizations such as in-person outreach, antenatal education, mobile applications, commercial advertising, and social media.

Conclusion

Canadian government websites primarily targeted reproductive health promotion to women + , with emphasis on environmental and behavioral risks to pregnancy. Significant environmental and behavioral information gaps were evident for men + and partners in the context of reproductive health. Online reproductive health promotion is an important resource to complement primary healthcare, community programming and public health interventions. Governments have the capacity and mandate, to design inclusive, evidence-based and comprehensive reproductive health promotion that differentially addresses the needs of women + , men + and partners across the reproductive lifespan.

Availability of data and materials

All materials are in the public domain at the websites hosted by the organizations indicated in Table 1 of this manuscript.

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on health promotion interventions for maternal and newborn health. GenevaI: World Health Organization; 2015. (SBN: 9789241508742).

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. 2016. ISBN: 9789241549912.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atrash HK, Johnson K, Mike M, Cordero F, Howse J. Preconception care for improving perinatal outcomes: the time to act. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10:S3-11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson K, Posner SF, Biermann J, Cordero JF, Atrash HK, Parker CS, et al. Recommendations to improve preconception health and health care — United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(RR-6):1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Public Health Agency of Canada. Chapter 2. Preconception care. In: In: Family-centred maternity and newborn care: national guidelines. 2019. ISBN: 978–0–660–33529–2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chedid RA, Phillips KP. Best practices for the design, implementation and evaluation of prenatal health programs. Matern Child Health J. 2019;23(1):109–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ostlin P, Eckermann E, Mishra US, Nkowane M, Wallstam E. Gender and health promotion: a multisectoral policy approach. Health Promot Int. 2007;21:25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Toivonen KI, Oinonen KA, Duchene KM. Preconception health behaviours: a scoping review. Prev Med (Baltim). 2017;96:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. MacKinnon KR, Lefkowitz A, Lorello GR, Schrewe B, Soklaridis S, Kuper A. Recognizing and renaming in obstetrics: How do we take better care with language? Obstet Med. 2021;14(4):201–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bunting L, Tsibulsky I, Boivin J. Fertility knowledge and beliefs about fertility treatment: findings from the international fertility decision-making study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):385–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daumler D, Chan P, Lo KC, Takefman J, Zelkowitz P. Men’s knowledge of their own fertility: a population-based survey examining the awareness of factors that are associated with male infertility. Human Reprod. 2016;31(12):2781–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Barron ML, Lithgow D, Wade GH, Mueller LG. Fertility health knowledge in U.S. adults: men narrowing the knowledge gap. Am J Mens Health. 2022;16(5):15579883221117916.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Frey KA, Navarro SM, Kotelchuck M, Lu MC. The clinical content of preconception care: preconception care for men. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:S389-95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Phillips KP. Chapter 1. Perceptions of environmental risks to fertility. In: Watson RR, editor. Handbook of fertility: nutrition, diet, lifestyle and reproductive health. San Diego: Academic Press; 2015; p. 3–17. ISBN 9780128008720.

  15. Figa-Talamanca I. Occupational risk factors and reproductive health of women. Occ Med. 2006;56:521–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Phillips KP, Tanphaichitr N. Human exposure to endocrine disrupters and semen quality. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2008;11(3–4):188–220.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Marcho C, Oluwayiose OA, Pilsner JR. The preconception environment and sperm epigenetics. Androl. 2020;8(4):924–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lane M, Robker RL, Robertson SA. Parenting from before conception. Science. 2014;345(6198):756–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sharpe RM. Lifestyle and environmental contribution to male infertility. Br Med Bull. 2000;56(3):630–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Phillips KP, Tanphaichitr N. Mechanisms of obesity-induced male infertility. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2010;5(2):229–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin LT, McNamara MJ, Milot AS, Halle T, Hair EC. The effects of father involvement during pregnancy on receipt of prenatal care and maternal smoking. Matern Child Health J. 2007;11(6):595–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Public Health Agency of Canada. Chapter 6. Breastfeeding. In: In: Family-centred maternity and newborn care: national guidelines. 2019. ISBN: 978–0–660–32125–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lassi ZS, Imam AM, Dean SV, Bhutta ZA. Preconception care: caffeine, smoking, alcohol, drugs and other environmental chemical/radiation exposure. Reprod Health. 2014;11(Suppl 3):S6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Vonderheid SC, Norr KF, Handler AS. Prenatal health promotion content and health behaviors. West J Nurs Res. 2007;29(3):258–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chalmers B, Med D, Mangiaterra V, Porter R. WHO principles of perinatal care: the essential antenatal, perinatal, and postpartum care course. Birth. 2001;28(3):202–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chedid RA, Terrell RM, Phillips KP. Best practices for online Canadian prenatal health promotion: a public health approach. Women Birth. 2018;31(4):e223–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hill B, Hall J, Skouteris H, Currie S. Defining preconception: exploring the concept of a preconception population. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Public Health Agency of Canada. What mothers say: the Canadian maternity experiences survey. Ottawa; 2009. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/rhs-ssg/pdf/survey-eng.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2023.

  29. Lagan BM, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG. Pregnant women’s use of the internet:a review of published and unpublished evidence. EBM. 2006;4(1):17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sayakhot P, Carolan-Olah M. Internet use by pregnant women seeking pregnancy-related information: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;28(16):65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lu Y, Barrett LA, Lin RZ, Amith M, Tao C, He Z. Understanding information needs and barriers to accessing health information across all stages of pregnancy: systematic review. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2022;5(1):e32235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Crighton EJ, Brown C, Baxter J, Lemyre L, Masuda JR, Ursitti F. Perceptions and experiences of environmental health risks among new mothers: a qualitative study in Ontario, Canada. Health Risk Soc. 2013;15(4):295–312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Laferriere K, Crighton EJ. “During pregnancy would have been a good time to get that information”: mothers’ concerns and information needs regarding environmental health risks to their children1. Int J Heal Promot Educ. 2017;55(2):96–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Government of Canada. Canada’s health care system. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-care-system/reports-publications/health-care-system/canada.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2023.

  35. Statistics Canada. Population estimates, quarterly. Table: 17-10-0009-01. Q. 4 2020. 2023. Accessed 12 December 2023. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=07&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2020&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021&referencePeriods=20200701%2C20210101 .

    Google Scholar 

  36. Statistics Canada. Population estimates, July 1, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, 2016 boundaries. Table: 17-10-0135-01. 2023. Accessed 12 December 2023. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710013501 .

    Google Scholar 

  37. Al Wattar BH, Pidgeon C, Learner H, Zamora J, Thangaratinam S. Onlinehealth information on obesity in pregnancy: a systematic review. Eur J ObstetGynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:147–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tafesse W, Wien A. A framework for categorizing social media posts. Cogent Bus Manag. 2017;4(1):1284390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vaismoradi M, Jones J, Turunen H, Snelgrove S. Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2016;6(5):100.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Caut C, Schoenaker D, McIntyre E, Vilcins D, Gavine A, Steel A. Relationships between women’s and men’s modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors and maternal and offspring health outcomes: an umbrella review. Semin Reprod Med. 2022;40((3-04)):170–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sansone A, Di Dato C, de Angelis C, Menafra D, Pozza C, Pivonello R, et al. Smoke, alcohol and drug addiction and male fertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ramírez N, Estofán G, Tissera A, Molina R, Luque EM, Torres PJ, Mangeaud A, Martini AC. Do aging, drinking, and having unhealthy weight have a synergistic impact on semen quality?. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(11):2985–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Strong LL, Starks HE, Meischke H, Thompson B. Perspectives of mothers in farmworker households on reducing the take- home pathway of pesticide exposure. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36:915–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Cornelius T, Desrosiers A, Kershaw T. Smoking concordance during pregnancy: are there relationship benefits?. Soc Sci Med. 2017;192:30–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Rhodes A, Smith AD, Llewellyn CH, Croker H. Investigating partner involvement in pregnancy and identifying barriers and facilitators to participating as a couple in a digital healthy eating and physical activity intervention. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nguyen PH, Frongillo EA, Sanghvi T, Wable G, Mahmud Z, Tran LM, et al. Engagement of husbands in a maternal nutrition program substantially contributed to greater intake of micronutrient supplements and dietary diversity during pregnancy: results of a cluster-randomized program evaluation in Bangladesh. J Nutr. 2018;148(8):1352–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Soucy NL, Terrell RM, Chedid RA, Phillips KP. Best practices in prenatal health promotion: perceptions, experiences, and recommendations of Ottawa, Canada, prenatal key informants. Womens Health (Lond). 2023;19:17455057231158224.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Berthelsen ASN, Gamby ALN, Christensen U, Schmidt L, Koert E. How do young men want to receive information about fertility? Young men’s attitudes towards a fertility campaign targeting men in Copenhagen, Denmark. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(3):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shawe J, Patel D, Joy M, Howden B, Barrett G, Stephenson J. Preparation for fatherhood: a survey of men’s preconception health knowledge and behaviour in England. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Oliffe JL, Rossnagel E, Kelly MT, Bottorff JL, Seaton C, Darroch F. Men’s health literacy: a review and recommendations. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(5):1037–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Shand T, Marcell AV. Engaging men in sexual and reproductive health. Glob Public Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.013.215.

  52. Frayne J, Hauck Y. Enjoying a healthy pregnancy: GPs’ essential role in health promotion. Aust Fam Physician. 2017;46(1):20–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, Lemons J, Levins R, Loechler EL, Quinn M, Rudel R, Schettler T, Stoto M. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(9):871-6.

  54. Poels M, van Stel HF, Franx A, Koster MPH. The effect of a local promotional campaign on preconceptional lifestyle changes and the use of preconception care. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care. 2018;23(1):38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stotland NE, Sutton P, Trowbridge J, Atchley DS, Conry J, Trasande L, et al. Counseling patients on preventing prenatal environmental exposures - a mixed-methods study of obstetricians. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e98771.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fraser G. Prevention: environmental health and nursing. Can Nurse. 2004;100(1):16–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Watterson A, Thomson P, Malcolm C, Shepherd A, McIntosh C. Integrating environmental health into nursing and midwifery practice. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(6):665–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Abderhalden-Zellweger A, Probst I, Politis Mercier M-P, Danuser B, Krief P. Protecting pregnancy at work: normative safety measures and employees’ safety strategies in reconciling work and pregnancy. Safe Sci. 2021;142:105387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mamluk L, Edwards HB, Savović J, et al. Low alcohol consumption and pregnancy and childhood outcomes: time to change guidelines indicating apparently ‘safe’ levels of alcohol during pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Nwosu C, Angus K, Cheeseman H, Semple S. Reducing secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmoking pregnant women: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(12):2127–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Nagpal TS, Souza SCS, Moffat M, Hayes L, Nuyts T, Liu RH, Bogaerts A, Dervis S, Piccinini-Vallis H, Adamo KB, Heslehurst N. Does prepregnancy weight change have an effect on subsequent pregnancy health outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2022;23(1):e13324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Mottola MF, Davenport MH, Ruchat SM, et al. 2019 Canadian guideline for physical activity throughout pregnancy. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(21):1339–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Committee to Reexamine IOM Pregnancy Weight Guidelines. Weight gain during pregnancy. In: Rasmussen KM, Yaktine AL, editors. Reexamining the guidelines. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Walker LO, Murphey CL, Nichols F. The broken thread of health promotion and disease prevention for women during the postpartum period. J Perinat Educ. 2015;24(2):81–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Niles PM, Baumont M, Malhotra N, Stoll K, Strauss N, Lyndon A, et al. Examining respect, autonomy, and mistreatment in childbirth in the US: do provider type and place of birth matter?. Reprod Health. 2023;20(1):67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. van der Pligt P, Olander EK, Ball K, Crawford D, Hesketh KD, Teychenne M, et al. Maternal dietary intake and physical activity habits during the postpartum period: associations with clinician advice in a sample of Australian first time mothers. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Huberty J, Dinkel D, Beets MW, Coleman J. Describing the use of the internet for health, physical activity, and nutrition information in pregnant women. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(8):1363–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Morahan-Martin JM. How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2004;7(5):497–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hsu AL, Johnson T, Phillips L, Nelson TB. Sources of vaccine hesitancy: pregnancy, infertility, minority concerns, and general skepticism. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;9(3):ofab433.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Whitsel LP. Government’s role in promoting healthy living. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;59(5):492–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Phillips KP, Martinez A. Sexual and reproductive health education: contrasting teachers’, health partners’ and former students’ perspectives. Can J Public Health. 2010;101:374–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Kreps GL, Neuhauser L. New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):329–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Neuhauser L, Kreps GL. Rethinking communication in the e-health era. J Health Psychol. 2003;8(1):7–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rioux C, Weedon S, London-Nadeau K, Paré A, Juster RP, Roos LE, Freeman M, Tomfohr-Madsen LM. Gender-inclusive writing for epidemiological research on pregnancy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022;76(9):823–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Gribble KD, Bewley S, Bartick MC, Mathisen R, Walker S, Gamble J, et al. Effective communication about pregnancy, birth, lactation, breastfeeding andnewborn care: the importance of sexed language. Front Glob Women’s Health. 2022;3:818856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Thompson EL, Vazquez-Otero C, Vamos CA, Marhefka SL, Kline NS, Daley EM. Rethinking preconception care: A critical, women’s health perspective. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21:1147–55.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Mello S, Stifano S, Tan ASL, Sanders-Jackson A, Bigman CA. Gendered conceptions of preconception health: a thematic analysis of men’s and women’s beliefs about responsibility for preconception health behavior. J Health Commun. 2020;25(5):374–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Pederson A, Greaves L, Poole N. Gender-transformative health promotion for women: a framework for action. Health Promot Int. 2015;30:140–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Fisher J, Makleff S. Advances in gender-transformative approaches to health promotion. Annu Rev Public Health. 2022;43:1–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No funding to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 25 Université Private, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Alexandra R. Rice, Toluwanimi D. Durowaye, Anne T. M. Konkle & Karen P. Phillips

  2. University of Ottawa Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada

    Anne T. M. Konkle

Authors
  1. Alexandra R. Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toluwanimi D. Durowaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne T. M. Konkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen P. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ARR contributed to project conceptualization, methodology, data collection, data analysis and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. TDD participated in data collection and manuscript review. KPP and ATMK were responsible for the conceptualization, methodology of the project, and contributed to manuscript editing and review. KPP and ATMK supervised ARR, and KPP supervised TDD.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen P. Phillips.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All reviewed material appeared on publicly available government or non-governmental websites, and therefore no ethics approval was necessary.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rice, A.R., Durowaye, T.D., Konkle, A.T.M. et al. Exploring online reproductive health promotion in Canada: a focus on behavioral and environmental influences from a sex and gender perspective. BMC Public Health 24, 1647 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19159-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19159-5

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us