The preconception health environment of prospective mothers and fathers has effects
on maternal and offspring health outcomes.[1 ]
[2 ] The developmental origins of health and disease[3 ] model has fostered research efforts aimed at the prevention of disease by modifying
risk exposures in the preconception period.[2 ]
[4 ]
[5 ]
[6 ]
[7 ] Consequently, preconception care[8 ] provided before women's first pregnancy (i.e., the preconception period) or between
women's subsequent pregnancies (i.e., the interpregnancy period)[9 ] aims to address modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors—whereby exposure
or risk can be prevented or reduced through behavior change or an intervention[5 ]—among prospective parents to improve maternal and offspring health.[8 ]
The substantive evidence describing preconception risks and health behaviors needs
consolidation so that clear preconception care directives can be developed and translated
into real-world applications. To date, Cochrane reviews have described routine pre-pregnancy
health promotion for improving health outcomes,[10 ] preconception risks and interventions,[11 ] and the efficacy and safety of periconception folic acid for preventing birth defects.[12 ] Other systematic and scoping reviews have outlined the effects of preconception
interventions on improving reproductive health and women's pregnancy outcomes delivered
in primary care[13 ] and public health and community settings.[14 ]
[15 ] An additional review has examined preconception health interventions, knowledge,
attitudes, behaviors, and intentions.[16 ] The largest body of research from these reviews focuses on folic acid supplementation
to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects (NTDs).
Research is needed that addresses the broad determinants of preconception health[14 ] inclusive of all individuals of reproductive age (women and their partners).[14 ]
[15 ]
[16 ] From a public health policy and practice viewpoint, understanding modifiable preconception
risks and health behaviors is crucial to promoting health across the life course through
preconception care. However, to address these risks and behaviors requires individuals
(reproductive-age women and their partners) and health professionals (e.g., general
practitioners, obstetricians/gynecologists and pediatricians, nurses, midwives, public
health workers, health educators, and other health professionals) that are aware of
preconception modifiable risks and health behaviors throughout the reproductive life
course.[17 ]
[18 ]
[19 ]
[20 ]
[21 ]
[22 ]
[23 ] As such, this review provides a summary of literature published in systematic reviews
examining women's and men's preconception risks and health behaviors, and their association
with maternal and offspring health outcomes.
Methods
Search Strategy
The protocol was developed in accordance with the PRISMA statement[24 ] and registered in PROSPERO on April 28, 2020 (CRD42020171244). Keyword and MeSH
terms were employed into MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, and PsycINFO
on March 4, 2020. The full search strategy for each database can be downloaded from
PROSPERO. [Table 1 ] provides an example of the search strategy as employed in MEDLINE (OVID) database.
Table 1
Keywords and MeSH terms for MEDLINE (OVID)
((preconception OR pre-conception OR periconceptional OR peri-conceptional OR pre-pregnancy
OR prepregnancy OR interconception OR preconception care).tw. OR preconception care.sh)
AND (risk factors OR risk taking OR exp health behavior OR exp attitude to health
OR health knowledge, attitudes, practice OR exp life style OR exp diet OR exp dietary
supplements OR nutrients OR micronutrients OR illicit drugs OR prescription drugs
OR exp environmental exposure).sh) AND (infertility OR exp pregnancy outcome OR exp
pregnancy complications OR maternal health OR maternal death OR maternal mortality
OR exp fetal development OR perinatal death OR child mortality OR exp congenital abnormalities
OR exp fetal diseases OR exp infant newborn diseases OR noncommunicable diseases).sh
OR (maternal outcome OR infant outcome OR child outcome OR life course).tw.))
Search limits included title and abstract, studies in humans, and articles published
in the past 10 years, with no limits to language. Non-English articles were translated
to the English language using Google Translate.[25 ] Abstracts were downloaded into EndNote X9[26 ] from each database and screened for duplicates before being imported into Covidence.[27 ]
Selection Criteria
Eligible studies were systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies
(i.e., cross-sectional, cohort—retrospective/prospective, case–control) that examined
the association of a modifiable risk or health behavior (such as, but not limited
to, dietary/nutritional, lifestyle, or environmental) with an embryo, maternal, fetal/neonate,
or child health outcome and sampled individuals identified as being in the preconception
period (i.e., exposure had occurred before conception). Articles (or results reported
in articles) were excluded if the preconception period was not the primary topic of
focus; the primary outcome was not related to a maternal or offspring health outcome;
not on humans (i.e., animal studies); and intervention studies (i.e., trials) or were
other types of reviews such as narrative reviews, commentary, or opinion articles.
Title and abstract and full-text screening occurred independently by two reviewers
before inclusion for review. Disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached.
If unresolved, a third reviewer was invited to adjudicate. The reason for article
exclusion was documented. A PRISMA flow diagram was generated.
Methodological Quality
Two review authors independently assessed the quality of the included studies using
AMSTAR 2.[28 ] Disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached.
Data Extraction
Data items were extracted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were discussed
between reviewers until consensus was reached.
Overlap
The degree of overlap of the included primary studies was examined from all reviews
in our review by employing the method described by Pieper et al[29 ] The corrected cover area (CCA) was calculated as a measure of overlap and described
as a value indicating the proportion and percentage of overlap.[29 ]
Data Synthesis
Characteristics and findings from included systematic review and meta-analyses were
presented in tables, summarizing for evidence synthesis the population, timeframe,
exposure, main outcomes measured, and results as presented in the articles.
Results
Database searches yielded 5,101 articles. After duplicate removal and title and abstract
screening, 62 full-text articles were assessed against the eligibility criteria. Thirty-five
articles[16 ]
[30 ]
[31 ]
[32 ]
[33 ]
[34 ]
[35 ]
[36 ]
[37 ]
[38 ]
[39 ]
[40 ]
[41 ]
[42 ]
[43 ]
[44 ]
[45 ]
[46 ]
[47 ]
[48 ]
[49 ]
[50 ]
[51 ]
[52 ]
[53 ]
[54 ]
[55 ]
[56 ]
[57 ]
[58 ]
[59 ]
[60 ]
[61 ]
[62 ]
[63 ] were excluded with reasons from the review. Reasons for exclusion from the review
included: not a systematic review (n = 16),[16 ]
[30 ]
[31 ]
[32 ]
[33 ]
[34 ]
[35 ]
[36 ]
[37 ]
[38 ]
[39 ]
[40 ]
[41 ]
[42 ]
[43 ]
[44 ] exposure not defined or reported as occurring during the preconception timeframe
(n = 11),[45 ]
[46 ]
[47 ]
[48 ]
[49 ]
[50 ]
[51 ]
[52 ]
[53 ]
[55 ]
[64 ] not eligible exposures (e.g., not modifiable) (n = 3),[37 ]
[57 ]
[63 ] ineligible study design (n = 2),[58 ]
[59 ] conference abstract (n = 1),[60 ] irrelevant outcomes (n = 1),[61 ] and not the relevant study population (n = 1).[62 ] A total of 27 systematic reviews were included ([Fig. 1 ]), and of these 19 presented meta-analysis of at least one outcome and exposure of
interest[64 ]
[65 ]
[66 ]
[67 ]
[68 ]
[69 ]
[70 ]
[71 ]
[72 ]
[73 ]
[74 ]
[75 ]
[76 ]
[77 ]
[78 ]
[79 ]
[80 ]
[81 ]
[82 ] and the remaining 8 presented a systematic review without meta-analysis.[83 ]
[84 ]
[85 ]
[86 ]
[87 ]
[88 ]
[89 ]
[90 ]
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram.
Degree of Overlap
The included articles cited 655 primary publications in 738 unique instances across
all reviews representing a CCA of 0.5% (CCA = 738–655/(655 × 27) − 655 = 0.005) indicating
only a slight overlap. We further examined 10 reviews containing more than five articles
cited more than once across all included reviews[65 ]
[68 ]
[70 ]
[73 ]
[74 ]
[75 ]
[77 ]
[83 ]
[86 ]
[88 ] and their exposure(s) and outcome(s) of interest. Three reviews[65 ]
[77 ]
[83 ] studied preconception obesity and reported on childhood neurocognitive development.
Two reviews[68 ]
[73 ] examined preconception underweight and reported on preterm birth, small for gestational
age, and low birthweight, and two reviews[68 ]
[86 ] studied preconception multivitamin supplementation (including folic acid) and reported
on preeclampsia, congenital abnormalities, and NTDs. One review[88 ] studied folic acid supplementation and NTDs. The remainder of reviews[70 ]
[73 ]
[74 ]
[75 ] had examined different exposures and outcomes. We determined the impact any occurrence
of overlap would have on our review findings was negligible.
Critical Appraisal
The methodological quality of the included studies ranged between critically low (n = 11),[68 ]
[70 ]
[71 ]
[72 ]
[73 ]
[74 ]
[76 ]
[79 ]
[82 ]
[85 ]
[86 ] low (n = 10),[64 ]
[65 ]
[66 ]
[69 ]
[77 ]
[78 ]
[80 ]
[81 ]
[82 ]
[87 ]
[90 ] and moderate (n = 6).[67 ]
[75 ]
[83 ]
[84 ]
[88 ]
[89 ] Of the seven AMSTAR 2 critical domains, 23 studies failed to register a study protocol
before commencement of the review, five studies failed in adequacy of the literature
search, 24 studies failed in providing justification for excluding individual studies,
10 studies failed to describe risk of bias from individual studies being included
in the review, and 13 studies failed in appropriateness of meta-analytical methods
(e.g., the use of unadjusted odds ratios [ORs] or risk ratios [RRs]). Where meta-analysis
was performed, nine studies failed in consideration of risk of bias when interpreting
the results of the review, and six studies failed to adequately assess the presence
and likely impact of publication bias. The individual assessment for each of the studies
against the 16 items of the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool can be requested from
the corresponding author.
Study Characteristics
[Table 2 ] and [Table 3 ] summarize findings by population, timeframe, exposure, and main associated outcome(s)
as embryo, maternal, fetal/neonate, and child health outcomes. The data extraction
tables describing detailed characteristics of the included studies can be requested
from the corresponding author.
Table 2
Summary of findings of included systematic reviews with meta-analysis
Reference
Population
Timeframe
Exposure
Embryo
Maternal
Fetal/Neonate
Child
Body composition
Dean et al 2014
Reproductive-age women
Preconception
Underweight
+
Liu et al 2016
Álvarez-Bueno et al 2017
Overweight and obesity
+
+/−
+
Liu et al 2016
Najafi et al 2019
Sanchez et al 2018
Zhang et al 2015
Dean et al 2014
Overweight
+
+
Dai et al 2018
Obesity
+
+
+
Zhang et al 2019
Kanadys et al 2012
Liu et al 2016
Sanchez et al 2018
Teulings et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Interpregnancy
Δ BMI kg/m2 (weight gain: 1 and 2, 2–3, or > 3 BMI units)
+
Teulings et al 2019
Δ BMI kg/m2 (weight gain: >3 BMI units)
+
+
Teulings et al 2019
Δ BMI kg/m2 (weight loss: >1 BMI unit)
+
Teulings et al 2019
Δ BMI kg/m2 (weight gain: > 3 BMI units, normal BMI at index pregnancy)
+
+
Teulings et al 2019
Δ BMI kg/m2 (weight gain: 2–3, >3 BMI units; normal BMI at index pregnancy)
+
Lifestyle
Karalexi et al 2017
Male partners
Preconception
Alcohol intake
−
Lassi et al 2014
Reproductive-age women
Periconception
Caffeine intake
+
Lassi et al 2014
Preconception
Alcohol intake
+
+
Patra et al 2011
Alcohol consumption (average of between 2 and 4 drinks or more per day)
+
Lassi et al 2014
Smoking
+
−
Lassi et al 2014
Male partners
Illicit drug use (heroin)
+
Lassi et al 2014
Reproductive-age women
Periconception
Illicit drug use
−
Lassi et al 2014
Illicit drug use
+
Lassi et al 2014
Preconception
Illicit drug use
+
Mijatovic-Vukas et al 2018
Physical activity (any type and >90 min/wk in leisure time physical activity)
+
Tobias et al 2011
Physical activity
+
Nutrition
Crider et al 2013
Reproductive-age women
Preconception
Folic acid supplementation (range 400–700 µg daily)
−
Periconception
Hodgetts et al 2015
Preconception
Folic acid supplementation (400–500 µg daily)
+
Dean et al 2014
Multivitamin supplementation
+
+
Environment
Lassi et al 2014
Occupational radiation
+
Lassi et al 2014
Reproductive-age women
Male partners
Occupational radiation
+
Lassi et al 2014
Male partners
Non-occupational radiation
+
+
Lassi et al 2014
Reproductive-age women
Pesticides
+
Lassi et al 2014
Male partners
Pesticides
+
Lassi et al 2014
Reproductive-age women
Male partners
Chemicals (paints, solvents, industrial products, etc.)
+
Lassi et al 2014
Dermal hydrocarbons and metal
+
Lassi et al 2014
Lead
+
Lassi et al 2014
Reproductive-age women
Periconception
Cooking with wood, coal, and/or tires
+
Lassi et al, 2014
Preconception
Particulate air pollution
+
Zhang et al 2020
Ambient air pollution and ozone (O3)
+
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; +, association found; −, no association found.
Notes: The analysis includes only observational study findings from the review.
Main associated health outcomes: embryo (e.g., reduced fecundity, miscarriage, prolonged
time to pregnancy, reduced embryonic growth trajectories), maternal (e.g., antenatal/postnatal
depression, maternal obesity, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, caesarean,
pregnancy-induced hypertension, shoulder dystocia, labor dystocia, precipitous labor,
placental abruption, uterine rupture), fetal/neonate (e.g., congenital heart defects,
neural tube defects, congenital abnormalities, anencephaly, large for gestational
age, macrosomia, intensive care neonatal admission, stillbirth, low birth weight,
preterm birth, small for gestational age, gastroschisis, reduced intrauterine growth,
cryptorchidism, oesophageal atresia), and child (e.g., reduced neurocognitive development,
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, developmental
delay, emotional/behavioral problems, cerebral palsy, asthma, leukemia, acute lymphoblastic
leukemia, childhood cancers, childhood overweight).
Table 3
Summary of findings of included systematic reviews
Reference
Population
Timeframe
Exposure
Embryo
Maternal
Fetal/Neonate
Child
Body composition
Adane et al 2016
Reproductive-age women
Preconception
Obesity
+
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
BMI
+
Steinig et al 2017
Reproductive-age women
Obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2 )
+
Weng et al 2012
Children aged 2 to 16 y
Maternal overweight
+
Woo Baidal et al 2016
Children aged 6 mo to 18 y
Maternal pre-pregnancy BMI
+
Woo Baidal et al 2016
Children aged 6 mo to 18 y
Paternal BMI
+
Nutrition
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Diet (Mediterranean dietary pattern)
+
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Folic acid and multivitamin supplement
+
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Periconception
Vitamin B6 levels
+
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Folic acid levels
+
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Vitamin B12 levels
+
Ramakrishnan et al 2012
Reproductive-age women
Preconception
Multivitamin
+
Ramakrishnan et al 2012
Reproductive-age women
Multivitamin
+
Viswanathan et al 2017
Reproductive-age women
Preconception
Folic acid supplementation
+
Lifestyle
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Periconception
Smoking
+
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Alcohol
+
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Caffeine
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Preconception
Periconception
Physical activity (moderate)
+
Woo Baidal et al 2016
Children aged 6 mo to 18 y
Preconception
Paternal smoking
−
Birth spacing
Hutcheon et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Interpregnancy (<24 mo)
Short interpregnancy interval (<6 and 6–11 mo)
+
Hutcheon et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Short interpregnancy interval (<6 vs. 18–23 mo)
+
Hutcheon et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Short interpregnancy interval (6–11 vs. 18–23 mo)
+
Hutcheon et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Short interpregnancy interval (<12 vs. 12–43 mo and <24 vs. 24–47 mo and <24 vs. ≥120
mo)
+
Hutcheon et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Short interpregnancy interval (<6 vs. 18–60 mo and 6–12 vs. 18–60 mo and 12–18 vs.
18–60 mo)
+
Hutcheon et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Short interpregnancy interval (<6 vs. 24–59 mo)
+
Hutcheon et al 2019
Parous reproductive-age women
Short interpregnancy interval (<6 vs. 18–59 mo) in women attempting vaginal birth
after caesarean
+
Environment
Oostingh et al 2019
Reproductive-age women
Preconception
Diet (fish contaminated with organochlorine compounds)
+
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; +, association found; −, no association found.
Notes: The analysis includes only observational study findings from the review.
Main associated health outcomes: embryo (e.g., reduced fecundity, miscarriage, prolonged
time to pregnancy, reduced embryonic growth trajectories), maternal (e.g., antenatal/postnatal
depression, maternal obesity, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, caesarean,
pregnancy-induced hypertension, shoulder dystocia, labor dystocia, precipitous labor,
placental abruption, uterine rupture), fetal/neonate (e.g., congenital heart defects,
neural tube defects, congenital abnormalities, anencephaly, large for gestational
age, macrosomia, intensive care neonatal admission, stillbirth, low birth weight,
preterm birth, small for gestational age, gastroschisis, reduced intrauterine growth,
cryptorchidism, oesophageal atresia), and child (e.g., reduced neurocognitive development,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, developmental
delay, emotional/behavioral problems, cerebral palsy, asthma, leukemia, acute lymphoblastic
leukemia, childhood cancers, childhood overweight).
Summary of Findings
Body Composition
Maternal
Underweight
Preconception underweight significantly increases the odds of preterm birth (OR: 1.30
[95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.49]),[73 ] and (OR: 1.32 [95% CI, 1.22, 1.43]),[68 ] small for gestational age (OR: 1.67 [95% CI, 1.49–1.87])[73 ] and (RR: 1.64 [95% CI, 1.22–2.21]),[68 ] and low birth weight infants (OR: 1.67 [95% CI, 1.39–2.02]).[73 ]
Overweight
Preconception overweight prolongs the time to pregnancy in comparison to normal weight
women and increases the risk of miscarriage.[85 ] Overweight women have increased odds of preeclampsia (OR: 2.28 [95% CI, 2.04–2.55]),
gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (OR: 1.91 [95% CI, 1.58, 2.32][68 ]; adjusted OR [aOR]: 2.01 [95% CI, 1.75–2.26]),[75 ] and an increased likelihood of a caesarean birth (OR: 1.42 [95% CI, 1.21–1.66]).[68 ] Overweight women significantly increase their odds for large-for-gestational-age
infants (OR: 1.45 [95% CI, 1.29–1.63]), infant admission to neonatal intensive care
unit (OR: 1.29 [95% CI, 1.12–1.48]), stillbirth (OR: 1.27 [95% CI, 1.18–1.36]),[73 ] and infant macrosomia (OR: 1.70 [95% CI, 1.55–1.87])[73 ]; aOR: 1.93 [95% CI, 1.65, 2.27]).[67 ]
Dean et al found a significant association between preconception overweight and birth
defects (NTDs, congenital heart defects) (OR: 1.15 [95% CI, 1.07–1.24]).[68 ] Sanchez et al reported preconception overweight increased the odds for compromised
neurodevelopmental outcomes in children (OR: 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11–1.24).[77 ] A higher maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) was found to have a consistent
relationship with childhood overweight.[90 ] In another systematic review by Weng et al, one study found that the children of
mothers' who were overweight before pregnancy were 1.37 times (95% CI, 1.18–1.58)
more likely to be overweight at 3 years of age than children of normal-weight mothers.[89 ]
Obesity
Obese women compared with normal-weight women prolong their time to pregnancy and
have higher miscarriage risk.[85 ] Women with obesity were shown to have an increased likelihood of GDM (aOR: 3.98
[95% CI, 3.42–4.53]; pooled aRR: 2.24 [95% CI, 1.97–2.51]),[75 ] premature births (OR: 1.18 [95% CI, 1.07–1.30]), medically induced preterm births
(OR: 1.72 [95% CI, 1.45–2.04]),[70 ] and shoulder dystocia (RR: 1.63 [95% CI, 1.33–1.99]).[80 ] Obese women significantly increase their odds of large-for-gestational-age infants
(OR: 1.88 [95% CI, 1.67–2.11]), infant admission to neonatal intensive care unit (OR:
1.91 [95% CI, 1.60–2.29]), stillbirth (OR: 1.81 [95% CI, 1.69–1.93]), and giving birth
to low birth weight infants (OR: 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09–1.41]).[73 ] Conversely, obesity also increases the odds for infant macrosomia (OR: 2.92 [95%
CI, 2.67–3.20][73 ]; OR: 1.63 [95%, 1.51–1.76]).[68 ]
An adverse association was found between childhood cognitive development and gross
motor function in children and mothers with preconception obesity.[83 ] In a meta-analysis by Álvarez-Bueno et al, preconception obesity was more likely
to have negative influences on a child's neurocognitive development (Effect Size [ES]:
0.06 [95% CI, −0.09 to −0.03]).[65 ] Similarly, Sanchez et al reported that preconception obesity increased odds for
compromised neurodevelopmental outcomes in children (OR: 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35–1.69]),
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (OR: 1.62 [95% CI, 1.23–2.14]), autism spectrum
disorder (OR: 1.36 [95% CI, 1.08–1.70]), developmental delay (OR: 1.58 [95% CI, 1.39–1.79]),
and emotional/behavioral problems (OR: 1.42 [95% CI, 1.26–1.59).[77 ] Zhang et al found a significant association between preconception obesity and an
increased odd of cerebral palsy in children (aOR: 1.51 [95% CI, 1.24–1.84]).[64 ] Children of mothers who were obese before pregnancy were 4.25 times (95% CI, 2.86–6.32)
more likely to be overweight at 7 years of age compared with children of nonobese
mothers.[89 ] Another study found that children of mothers who were obese before pregnancy were
2.36 times (95% CI, 2.36–8.85) more likely to be overweight between 9 and 14 years
of age compared with children of nonobese mothers.[89 ] The review by Steinig et al found a positive association between preconception obesity
and antenatal and postnatal depression.[87 ]
Interpregnancy Weight Change
Women with interpregnancy weight gain, compared with normal weight women, increase
their odds of developing GDM in a subsequent pregnancy that is proportionate to their
BMI increase (1–2 BMI units: aOR: 1.51 [95% CI, 1.22–1.80]; 2–3 BMI units: aOR: 1.81
[95% CI, 1.20–2.41]; >3 BMI units: aOR: 2.37 [95% CI, 1.50–3.34]); the highest odds
was reported for women with a BMI <25 kg/m2 in their previous pregnancy and an interpregnancy weight gain of >3 BMI units (aOR:
4.36 [95% CI, 2.29–6.44]).[78 ] Women with an interpregnancy weight gain of >3 BMI units increase their likelihood
of hypertension (aOR: 1.70 [95% CI, 1.50–1.91]) and preeclampsia (aOR: 1.71 [95% CI,
1.51–1.91]) in a subsequent pregnancy.[78 ] There is increased odds of developing pregnancy-induced hypertension in women with
a previous pre-pregnancy BMI <25 kg/m2 if their weight increases more than 2 BMI units(2–3 BMI units, aOR: 1.60 [95% CI,
1.04–2.16]; >3 BMI units, aOR: 2.21 [95% CI, 1.81–2.60]).[78 ] An interpregnancy weight gain of >3 BMI units increases the odds of giving birth
to a large-for-gestational-age neonate by 63% (aOR: 1.63 [95% CI, 1.30–1.97]) in a
subsequent pregnancy.[78 ] The likelihood is highest when the women's BMI was <25 kg/m2 in her previous pregnancy and her interpregnancy weight gain is >3 BMI units (aOR:
1.80 [95% CI, 1.24–2.35]).[78 ] However, interpregnancy weight loss of >1 BMI unit was associated with lowering
the odds of giving birth to a large-for-gestational-age neonate in a subsequent pregnancy
(aOR: 1.63 [95% CI, 1.30–1.97]).[78 ]
Paternal
Body Mass Index
One systematic review reports paternal preconception BMI,[90 ] finding an association between fathers with a higher preconception BMI and having
children who are overweight.[90 ]
Lifestyle
Maternal
Smoking
Women smoking in the preconception period have poorer fecundity ratios, prolonged
time to pregnancy, reduced embryonic growth trajectories, and increased miscarriage
risk.[85 ] Compared with no smoking, preconception smoking has significantly higher odds of
preterm birth (OR: 2.2 [95% CI, 1.29–3.75]),[72 ] and periconceptional smoking increases the likelihood of congenital heart defects
threefold (OR: 2.80 [95% CI, 1.76–4.47]).[72 ]
Alcohol
Women consuming alcohol in the preconception and periconceptional period may experience
lower conception rates and an increased risk of miscarriage.[85 ] In the systematic review by Oostingh et al, three out of seven studies found greater
than three drinks per week was associated with miscarriage.[85 ] In the meta-analysis by Lassi et al, preconception alcohol consumption increased
the risk of miscarriage by 30% (pooled RR: 1.30 [0.85–1.97]).[72 ] Periconception alcohol consumption is also associated with reduced embryonic growth
trajectories.[85 ] Preconception alcohol consumption increased the odds of NTDs, with binge drinking
increasing the risk by 20% more compared with one drink per day (OR: 1.24 [95% CI,
0.92–1.68]).[72 ] Periconceptional alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of oesophageal
atresia with or without tracheo-oesophageal fistula (RR: 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03–1.56])
and periconceptional alcohol intake once weekly increased the risk of congenital heart
defects compared with no intake (OR: 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91–1.01]).[72 ] The risk of low birth weight increased when an average of three drinks or more per
day are consumed during the periconceptional period (RR: 1.07 [95% CI, 0.79–1.45]),
and the risk of preterm birth is increased when an average of five drinks or more
per day are consumed (RR: 1.04 [95% CI, 0.65–1.68]).[76 ] Compared with no alcohol intake during the periconceptional period, consuming an
average of two drinks or more per day increases risk of small-for-gestational-age
infant (RR: 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82–1.27]).[76 ]
Caffeine
Women consuming more than 501 mg caffeine per day in the periconceptional period significantly
increased their time to pregnancy and had a higher risk of miscarriage.[85 ] In the meta-analysis by Lassi et al, periconception caffeine intake increased risk
of miscarriage with greater than 300 mg/day (pooled RR: 1.77 [95% CI, 0.83–3.78]).[72 ] In addition, reduced embryonic growth trajectories were observed in women consuming
caffeine during preconception.[85 ]
Physical Activity
Women undertaking vigorous physical activity in preconception have been associated
with prolonging the time to pregnancy; however, moderate physical activity was shown
to significantly decrease the risk of miscarriage.[85 ] Engaging in any type of physical activity compared with none during the preconception
period is associated with approximately 30% reduced odds of GDM (pooled OR: 0.70 [95%
CI, 0.57–0.85]).[74 ] While engaging in physical activity levels >90 minute/week or higher physical activity
levels during preconception was associated with 46 and 55% reduced odds of GDM (pooled
OR: 0.54 [95% CI, 0.34–0.87][74 ] and pooled OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28–0.75]),[79 ] respectively.
Illicit Drugs
Illicit drug use in the periconceptional period increases the incidence of gastroschisis
in infants (OR: 1.76 [95% CI, 0.99–3.13]).[72 ] Preconception illicit drug use increases the likelihood of postnatal depression
for the mother (OR: 9.60 [95% CI, 1.80–51.20]).[72 ]
Paternal
Illicit Drugs
One meta-analysis measured paternal preconception illicit drug use, finding that paternal
preconception heroin use significantly increases the risk of NTDs (RR: 1.63 [95% CI,
1.23–2.16]).[72 ]
Nutrition
Maternal
Dietary Pattern
A stronger adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern during preconception was
associated with significantly lower odds of attending an infertility consultation,
reported in the review by Oostingh et al.[85 ]
Multivitamins and Nutrients
Supplementing multivitamins and folic acid during preconception was significantly
associated with increased fecundity.[85 ] Lower vitamin B12 and lower and higher folic acid concentrations during periconception
were associated with reduced morphological development of the embryo,[85 ] whereas higher vitamin B6 status was associated with a reduction in miscarriage
risk.[85 ] Dean et al reported a 27% risk reduction of preeclampsia with preconception multivitamin
supplementation (pooled OR: 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58–0.92]).[68 ] Preconception and/or periconception multivitamin supplementation was negatively
associated with low birth weight, small-for-gestational-age infants, and preterm birth
in the systematic review by Ramakrishnan et al.[86 ]
Folic Acid
The systematic review by Viswanathan et al reported that preconception folic acid
supplementation demonstrated a negative association with NTDs and a 43% risk reduction
of multiple congenital abnormalities (pooled OR: 0.57 [95% CI, 0.34–0.82]).[88 ] An earlier meta-analysis reported that folic acid supplementation during preconception
had a 49% decreased risk of NTDs (pooled RR: 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31–0.82]).[68 ] Preconception folic acid supplementation (400–500 µg daily) also has significantly
lower odds for small-for-gestational-age births (aOR: 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61–0.92]).[69 ]
Environmental
Maternal
Radiation
Maternal periconceptional occupational radiation exposure increased risk of early
miscarriage (RR: 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04–1.66]).[72 ] Maternal preconception occupational exposure to ionizing radiation increased risk
of childhood cancers (RR: 1.19 [95% CI, 0.92–1.54]).[72 ]
Pesticides
In women, a significantly lower pregnancy success rate was reported with periconceptional
consumption of fish contaminated with organochlorine compounds compared with no consumption
of organochlorines.[85 ] Maternal preconception pesticide exposure was associated with miscarriage.[72 ]
Air Pollution
Maternal preconception exposure to high levels of traffic-related particulate air
pollution increases risk of early pregnancy loss as reported by Lassi et al.[72 ]
Chemicals and Metal
Maternal exposure to excess lead increased the odds of congenital heart defects (OR:
2.59 [95% CI, 1.68–3.82]).[72 ] Use of wood when cooking increased the risk of NTDs threefold (95% CI, 1.70–6.21),
and women cooking or heating with wood, coal, or tires in their homes increase the
odds of infant anencephaly (OR: 2.04 [95% CI, 1.29–3.23]).[72 ] Maternal preconception exposure to chemicals (e.g., paints, solvents, industrial
products) increased risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in offspring[72 ] and exposure to dermal hydrocarbons and metal increased risk of leukemia and acute
lymphoblastic leukemia.[72 ]
Paternal
Radiation
Paternal preconception occupational exposure to ionizing radiation increased risk
of childhood cancers (RR: 1.29 [95% CI, 1.02–1.63]).[72 ] Paternal nonoccupational ionizing radiation exposure from X-rays was associated
with increased risk of low birth weight (MD: −73.00 [95% CI, −78.97, −67.03]) and
increased risk of reduced intrauterine growth (MD: −53.00 [95% CI, −58.21, −47.79]).[72 ] Father's exposed to abdominal X-ray during preconception was associated with an
increased risk of leukemia in offspring.[72 ]
Chemicals and Metal
Paternal exposure to pesticides in the year before conception increased the risks
of hematological malignancies in offspring.[72 ] Paternal preconception exposure to chemicals (e.g., paints, solvents, industrial
products) increased risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in offspring[72 ] and exposure to dermal hydrocarbons and metal increased risk of leukemia and acute
lymphoblastic leukemia.[72 ] Paternal preconception exposure to excess lead increased the odds of congenital
heart defects (OR: 2.59 [95% CI, 1.68–3.82]).[72 ]
Birth Spacing
Maternal
Short Interpregnancy Interval
Short interpregnancy intervals (<6 and 6–11 months) were associated with increased
likelihood of maternal obesity compared with intervals of 18 to 23 months (aOR: 1.61
[95% CI, 1.05–2.45], and aOR: 1.43 [95% CI, 1.10–1.87]).[84 ] The odds of GDM were also higher with shorter interpregnancy intervals <6 versus
18 to 23 months (aOR: 1.35 [95% CI, 1.02–1.80]),[84 ] whereas the odds of preeclampsia were lower with shorter interpregnancy intervals
of 6 to 11 versus 18 to 23 months (OR: 0.71 [95% CI, 0.54–0.94]).[84 ] The likelihood of labor dystocia was lower with shorter interpregnancy intervals
<12 versus 12 to 43 months (aOR: 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85–0.97]), <24 versus 24 to 47 months
(aOR: 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93–0.96]), and <24 versus ≥120 months (aOR: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.64–0.68]).[84 ] The odds of precipitous labor were higher with shorter interpregnancy intervals
<6 versus 18 to 60 months (aOR: 1.30 [95% CI, 1.11–1.51]), 6 to 12 versus 18 to 60
months (aOR: 1.19 [95% CI, 1.04–1.36]), and 12 to 18 versus 18 to 60 months (aOR:
1.25 [95% CI, 1.10–1.41]).[84 ] The likelihood of placental abruption was higher with shorter interpregnancy intervals
<6 versus 24 to 59 months (aOR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3–3.0]).[84 ] Uterine rupture was more likely with short interpregnancy intervals <6 versus 18
to 59 months in women attempting vaginal birth after caesarean birth (aOR: 3.05 [95%
CI, 1.36–6.87]).[84 ]
Discussion
Main Findings
Modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors across multiple categories (body
composition, lifestyle, nutrition, environmental, and birth spacing) were found to
be associated with numerous maternal and offspring health outcomes.
Strengths and Limitations
This review—employing a thorough, rigorous search strategy and overlap assessment
to minimize amplifying findings from one study—is the most comprehensive examination
of research investigating preconception modifiable risks and health behaviors to date.
The review identified variable amounts of evidence for a range of exposures. Greater
quantities of evidence may be due to a research focus on health priority areas, such
as obesity. However, limited research examining environmental exposures and paternal
exposures in humans may reflect a need to broaden the current gaze among preconception
epidemiological research. Given this umbrella review included only systematic reviews,
it does not include primary research on these topics not already reviewed. As such,
there is potential that non-reviewed topic areas have been excluded. For example,
research on men's preconception health has received attention over the last decade
on various types of paternal exposure and offspring health outcomes[91 ]
[92 ]
[93 ]
[94 ]; however, this has not yet been comprehensively summarized, although further work
is underway.[95 ] Heterogeneity existed between the data (e.g., OR/RR); therefore, further analyses
to determine the strength of the association between an exposure and outcome was not
possible.
Interpretation
The vast amount of evidence outlined in this review emphasizes preconception care's
critical role in the prevention of noncommunicable diseases through modification of
preconception risk exposure,[2 ]
[6 ]
[7 ] and providing primary prevention for adverse maternal and offspring health outcomes.
The review identified a list of modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors
that could be applied to improve screening for preconception risks, enabling the timely
initiation of preconception counseling and education where needed.[96 ] These modifiable risk factors can be scaffolded by existing conceptual frameworks
that outline the critical timing to commence preconception care.[97 ] For example, addressing body composition through adopting a healthy diet and increased
physical activity should be considered as early as 3 years prior to conception,[97 ] whereas cessation of smoking and alcohol consumption should commence at least 3
months before conception or when intending to become pregnant.[97 ]
Particularly given the lack of consensus regarding the best way to provide preconception
care in healthcare systems,[96 ] one of the challenges for preconception care is identifying opportunities for population-level
delivery that aims to benefit the whole population and is equitable, considering the
unique needs of low socioeconomic, adolescent, LGBTQIA + , men, ethnic minority, and
culturally and linguistically diverse populations.[98 ] Barker et al propose a preconception care framework that identifies preconception
health awareness and intervention opportunities throughout the reproductive life course.[21 ] Another approach reflects differing aspects of preconception care healthcare delivery
models, including screening, education and intervention in primary care, hospital,
community, and community outreach settings.[96 ] The findings of this review may help inform future planning for preconception care
initiatives in the community.
The modifiable preconception risks identified in the review may be best ameliorated
by both population- and individual-level behavioral change strategies. Behavior change
interventions such as preconception counseling and education delivered in primary
care, public health, and community settings are effective at reducing risks and encouraging
health-promoting behaviors including supplementing with folic acid and/or folic acid–containing
multivitamin, consumption of a healthy diet, physical activity, and reduction in use
of harmful substances (caffeine, smoking, alcohol, and illicit drugs).[10 ]
[11 ]
[13 ]
[15 ]
[16 ]
[99 ] Some preconception care initiatives, programs, and clinical practice guidelines
have been developed;[9 ]
[100 ]
[101 ]
[102 ]
[103 ]
[104 ]
[105 ]
[106 ]
[107 ]; however, these efforts need to be wider spread.
A range of health professionals can assist with preconception care delivery such as
physicians (e.g., general practitioners, obstetricians/gynecologists, and pediatricians)
and other health professionals (e.g., nurses, midwives, public health workers, social
workers, health educators, pharmacists, nutritionists, naturopaths, and acupuncturists).[108 ]
[109 ] One of the known barriers to implementing preconception care is health professionals'
confidence in, and capacity to deliver, preconception care.[22 ]
[110 ] Consequently, identifying and addressing barriers to providing preconception care
requires close attention to health professionals' time constraints, limited resources,
and knowledge of preconception care.[96 ]
[110 ] There is a need to develop preconception care resources to support health professionals
in their role and policies to support preconception care implementation across a wide
range of private and public health settings.[23 ]
[111 ] For this to be achieved, the development and application of a validated preconception
care health literacy instrument can be used to undertake assessment of health professionals'
preconception care knowledge to determine the next steps needed for preconception
care education and evaluation of preconception care delivery.[112 ]