Relationships between Women's and Men's Modifiable Preconception Risks and Health Behaviors and Maternal and Offspring Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review

Abstract

Parental health before conception effects maternal and offspring health outcomes. Preconception care provides healthcare to prospective parents addressing modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors. This umbrella review aimed to consolidate evidence on women's and men's modifiable preconception risks or health behaviors associated with maternal and offspring health outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from March 4, 2010, to March 4, 2020. Eligible studies were systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies examining associations between modifiable preconception risks or health behaviors and maternal and offspring health outcomes. Screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (AMSTAR 2) occurred independently by two reviewers. Degree of overlap was examined. Findings were summarized for evidence synthesis. Twenty-seven systematic reviews were included. Modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors were identified across categories: body composition (e.g., overweight, obesity), lifestyle behaviors (e.g., caffeine, smoking), nutrition (e.g., micronutrients), environmental exposures (e.g., radiation), and birth spacing (e.g., short interpregnancy intervals). Outcomes associated with exposures affected embryo (e.g., embryonic growth), maternal (e.g., gestational diabetes mellitus), fetal/neonate (e.g., preterm birth), and child (e.g., neurocognitive disorders) health. For real-world practice and policy relevance, evidence-based indicators for preconception care should include body composition, lifestyle, nutrition, environmental, and birth spacing.

Keywords

preconception care - risk factors - health behavior - maternal health - pregnancy complications

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]

Conclusion

For real-world practice and policy relevance, evidence-based indicators for preconception care should include body composition, lifestyle, nutrition, environmental, and birth spacing. Identifying the effects of modifiable risk factors on maternal and offspring health outcomes can help inform future public health messages, clinical guidelines, and preconception care interventions to confirm whether modifying preconception risks and exposures affects maternal and offspring outcomes. Future research attention on the effects of preconception environmental exposures and paternal exposures is needed.

Conflict of Interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

The authors have no acknowledgments to make.

Ethical Statement

Ethics approval was not required for this umbrella review.

Authors' Contributions

C.C. designed the protocol and performed the searches, screening, quality appraisal, overlap assessment, data extraction, and data analysis and drafted, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. A.S. was second reviewer for article screening at the title and abstract stage; D.S. was second reviewer for article screening at the full-text stage; A.G. was second reviewer for quality appraisal; D.V. was second reviewer for data extraction; and A.S., D.S., and E.M. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

• References

• 1 Lane M, Robker RL, Robertson SA. Parenting from before conception. Science 2014; 345 (6198): 756-760
• 2 Fleming TP, Watkins AJ, Velazquez MA. et al. Origins of lifetime health around the time of conception: causes and consequences. Lancet 2018; 391 (10132): 1842-1852
• 3 Barker DJ. Intrauterine programming of adult disease. Mol Med Today 1995; 1 (09) 418-423
• 4 Wang G, Walker SO, Hong X, Bartell TR, Wang X. Epigenetics and early life origins of chronic noncommunicable diseases. J Adolesc Health 2013; 52 (2, Suppl 2): S14-S21
• 5 Gakidou E, Afshin A, Abajobir AA. et al; GBD 2016 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017; 390 (10100) 1345-1422
• 6 Jacob CM, Killeen SL, McAuliffe FM. et al. Prevention of noncommunicable diseases by interventions in the preconception period: A FIGO position paper for action by healthcare practitioners. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2020; 151 (Suppl. 01) 6-15
• 7 McAuliffe FM, Killeen SL, Jacob CM. et al. Management of prepregnancy, pregnancy, and postpartum obesity from the FIGO Pregnancy and Non-Communicable Diseases Committee: a FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) guideline. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2020; 151 (Suppl. 01) 16-36
• 8 Posner SF, Johnson K, Parker C, Atrash H, Biermann J. The national summit on preconception care: a summary of concepts and recommendations. Matern Child Health J 2006; 10 (5, Suppl): S197-S205
• 9 Randel A. Interpregnancy care: guidelines from ACOG and SMFM. Am Fam Physician 2019; 100 (02) 121-123
• 10 Whitworth M, Dowswell T. Routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (04) CD007536
• 11 Dean SV, Imam AM, Lassi ZS, Bhutta ZA. Systematic Review of Preconception Risks and Interventions. Pakistan: Division of Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University; 2013
• 12 De-Regil LM, Peña-Rosas JP, Fernández-Gaxiola AC, Rayco-Solon P. Effects and safety of periconceptional oral folate supplementation for preventing birth defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (12) CD007950
• 13 Hussein N, Kai J, Qureshi N. The effects of preconception interventions on improving reproductive health and pregnancy outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Gen Pract 2016; 22 (01) 42-52
• 14 Brown HK, Mueller M, Edwards S. et al. Preconception health interventions delivered in public health and community settings: a systematic review. Can J Public Health 2017; 108 (04) e388-e397
• 15 Hemsing N, Greaves L, Poole N. Preconception health care interventions: a scoping review. Sex Reprod Healthc 2017; 14: 24-32
• 16 Toivonen KI, Oinonen KA, Duchene KM. Preconception health behaviours: a scoping review. Prev Med 2017; 96: 1-15
• 17 Christiansen C, Chandra-Mouli V, Ogbaselassie L, Willumsen J, Mason E. Meeting to develop a global consensus on preconception care to reduce maternal and childhood mortality and morbidity. Geneva: World Health Organization Headquarters; 2013
• 18 Squiers L, Mitchell EW, Levis DM. et al. Consumers' perceptions of preconception health. Am J Health Promot 2013; 27 (3, Suppl): S10-S19
• 19 Bortolus R, Oprandi NC, Rech Morassutti F. et al. Why women do not ask for information on preconception health? A qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17 (01) 5-5
• 20 Hammarberg K, Norman RJ, Robertson S, McLachlan R, Michelmore J, Johnson L. Development of a health promotion programme to improve awareness of factors that affect fertility, and evaluation of its reach in the first 5 years. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2017; 4: 33-40
• 21 Barker M, Dombrowski SU, Colbourn T. et al. Intervention strategies to improve nutrition and health behaviours before conception. Lancet 2018; 391 (10132): 1853-1864
• 22 Goossens J, De Roose M, Van Hecke A, Goemaes R, Verhaeghe S, Beeckman D. Barriers and facilitators to the provision of preconception care by healthcare providers: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2018; 87: 113-130
• 23 Atrash H, Jack B. Preconception care: developing and implementing regional and national programs. J Hum Growth Dev 2020; 30 (03) 363-371
• 24 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
• 25 Google Translate 2020. Accessed February 14, 2022 at: https://translate.google.com/intl/en/about/
• 26 EndNote X9 [Computer Software]. Version X9.3.3. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics; 2020.
• 27 Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org
• 28 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
• 29 Pieper D, Antoine S-L, Mathes T, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67 (04) 368-375
• 30 Baldacci S, Gorini F, Santoro M, Pierini A, Minichilli F, Bianchi F. Environmental and individual exposure and the risk of congenital anomalies: a review of recent epidemiological evidence. Epidemiol Prev 2018; 42 (3-4, Suppl 1): 1-34
• 31 Kim JY, Son MJ, Son CY. et al. Environmental risk factors and biomarkers for autism spectrum disorder: an umbrella review of the evidence. Lancet Psychiatry 2019; 6 (07) 590-600
• 32 Liao XP, Yu Y, Marc I. et al. Prenatal determinants of childhood obesity: a review of risk factors. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2019; 97 (03) 147-154
• 33 Lyall K, Schmidt RJ, Hertz-Picciotto I. Maternal lifestyle and environmental risk factors for autism spectrum disorders. Int J Epidemiol 2014; 43 (02) 443-464
• 34 Mantovani E, Filippini F, Bortolus R, Franchi M. Folic acid supplementation and preterm birth: results from observational studies. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 481914
• 35 Ng M, de Montigny JG, Ofner M, Do MT. Environmental factors associated with autism spectrum disorder: a scoping review for the years 2003-2013. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can 2017; 37 (01) 1-23
• 36 Nicoll R. Environmental contaminants and congenital heart defects: a re-evaluation of the evidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15 (10) 25
• 37 Palomba S, Santagni S, Gibbins K, La Sala GB, Silver RM. Pregnancy complications in spontaneous and assisted conceptions of women with infertility and subfertility factors. A comprehensive review. [ Review] Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 33 (05) 612-628
• 38 Ponsonby AL, Lucas RM, Lewis S, Halliday J. Vitamin D status during pregnancy and aspects of offspring health. Nutrients 2010; 2 (03) 389-407
• 39 Ricks N, Comer L, Liu F, DeGrande H, Adeniran O. Substance use and preconception care: a review of the literature. Int J Women's Health Reprod Sci 2017; 5 (01) 3-10
• 40 Rusconi F, Popovic M. Maternal obesity and childhood wheezing and asthma. [ Review] Paediatr Respir Rev 2017; 22: 66-71
• 41 Salihu HM. Maternal obesity and stillbirth. Semin Perinatol 2011; 35 (06) 340-344
• 42 Wesnes SL, Lose G. Preventing urinary incontinence during pregnancy and postpartum: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2013; 24 (06) 889-899
• 43 Wilson RD, Wilson RD, Audibert F. et al; Genetics Committee, Special Contributors. Pre-conception folic acid and multivitamin supplementation for the primary and secondary prevention of neural tube defects and other folic acid-sensitive congenital anomalies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015; 37 (06) 534-552
• 44 Wojcicki JM. Maternal prepregnancy body mass index and initiation and duration of breastfeeding: a review of the literature. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2011; 20 (03) 341-347
• 45 Noventa M, Vitagliano A, Quaranta M, Borgato S, Abdulrahim B, Gizzo S. Preventive and therapeutic role of dietary inositol supplementation in periconceptional period and during pregnancy: a summary of evidences and future applications. Reprod Sci 2016; 23 (03) 278-288
• 46 Flak AL, Yun Tark J, Tinker SC, Correa A, Cogswell ME. Major, non-chromosomal, birth defects and maternal physical activity: a systematic review. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2012; 94 (07) 521-531
• 47 Hoang TT, Agopian AJ, Mitchell LE. Maternal use of weight loss products and the risk of neural tube defects in offspring: a systematic literature review. Birth Defects Res 2018; 110 (01) 48-55
• 48 Parnell AS, Correa A, Reece EA. Pre-pregnancy obesity as a modifier of gestational diabetes and birth defects associations: a systematic review. Matern Child Health J 2017; 21 (05) 1105-1120
• 49 Pottinger E, Woolf RT, Exton LS, Burden AD, Nelson-Piercy C, Smith CH. Exposure to biological therapies during conception and pregnancy: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2018; 178 (01) 95-102
• 50 Schoenaker DA, Soedamah-Muthu SS, Mishra GD. The association between dietary factors and gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC Med 2014; 12: 157
• 51 Tan J, Xiong YQ, He Q. et al. Peri-conceptional or pregnancy exposure of HPV vaccination and the risk of spontaneous abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19 (01) 302
• 52 van den Boogaard E, Vissenberg R, Land JA. et al. Significance of (sub)clinical thyroid dysfunction and thyroid autoimmunity before conception and in early pregnancy: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (05) 605-619
• 53 Wang A, Liu C, Wang Y. et al. Pregnancy outcomes after human papillomavirus vaccination in periconceptional period or during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2020; 16 (03) 581-589
• 54 Zheng Z, Xie G, Yang T, Qin J. Congenital malformations are associated with secondhand smoke among nonsmoking women: a meta-analysis. Birth 2019; 46 (02) 222-233
• 55 Zwink N, Jenetzky E. Maternal drug use and the risk of anorectal malformations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2018; 13 (01) 75
• 56 Palomba S, Homburg R, Santagni S, La Sala GB, Orvieto R. Risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after high technology infertility treatment: a comprehensive systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2016; 14 (01) 76
• 57 Udenze IC. Association of pre-eclampsia with metabolic syndrome and increased risk of cardiovascular disease in women: a systemic review. [ Review] Niger J Clin Pract 2016; 19 (04) 431-435
• 58 Lan L, Harrison CL, Misso M. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preconception lifestyle interventions on fertility, obstetric, fetal, anthropometric and metabolic outcomes in men and women. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (09) 1925-1940
• 59 Price SA, Sumithran P, Nankervis A, Permezel M, Proietto J. Preconception management of women with obesity: a systematic review. Obes Rev 2019; 20 (04) 510-526
• 60 Grice DE, Hudziak JJ. Early environmental exposures as shared and unique risk factors in childhood mental illness: results from large-scale epidemiological studies. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2016; 55 (10, Suppl 1): S312
• 61 Toivonen KI, Lacroix E, Flynn M. et al. Folic acid supplementation during the preconception period: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2018; 114: 1-17
• 62 Bayrampour H, Vinturache A, Hetherington E, Lorenzetti DL, Tough S. Risk factors for antenatal anxiety: a systematic review of the literature. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2018; 36 (05) 476-503
• 63 Akhter Z, Rankin J, Ceulemans D. et al. Pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2019; 16 (08) e1002866
• 64 Zhang J, Peng L, Chang Q. et al. Maternal obesity and risk of cerebral palsy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol 2019; 61 (01) 31-38
• 65 Álvarez-Bueno C, Cavero-Redondo I, Lucas-de la Cruz L, Notario-Pacheco B, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Association between pre-pregnancy overweight and obesity and children's neurocognitive development: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Epidemiol 2017; 46 (05) 1653-1666
• 66 Crider KS, Cordero AM, Qi YP, Mulinare J, Dowling NF, Berry RJ. Prenatal folic acid and risk of asthma in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2013; 98 (05) 1272-1281
• 67 Dai RX, He X-J, Hu C-L. Maternal pre-pregnancy obesity and the risk of macrosomia: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 297 (01) 139-145
• 68 Dean SV, Lassi ZS, Imam AM, Bhutta ZA. Preconception care: nutritional risks and interventions. Reprod Health 2014; 11 (Suppl. 03) S3
• 69 Hodgetts VA, Morris RK, Francis A, Gardosi J, Ismail KM. Effectiveness of folic acid supplementation in pregnancy on reducing the risk of small-for-gestational age neonates: a population study, systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2015; 122 (04) 478-490
• 70 Kanadys WM, Leszczyńska-Gorzelak B, Jedrych M, Oleszczuk J. [Maternal pre-pregnancy obesity and the risk of preterm birth: a systematic overview of cohort studies with meta-analysis]. Ginekol Pol 2012; 83 (04) 270-279
• 71 Karalexi MA, Dessypris N, Thomopoulos TP. et al. Parental alcohol consumption and risk of leukemia in the offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 2017; 26 (05) 433-441
• 72 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. 03) S6
• 73 Liu P, Xu L, Wang Y. et al. Association between perinatal outcomes and maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index. Obes Rev 2016; 17 (11) 1091-1102
• 74 Mijatovic-Vukas J, Capling L, Cheng S. et al. Associations of diet and physical activity with risk for gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients 2018; 10 (06) 698
• 75 Najafi F, Hasani J, Izadi N. et al. The effect of prepregnancy body mass index on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2019; 20 (03) 472-486
• 76 Patra J, Bakker R, Irving H, Jaddoe VW, Malini S, Rehm J. Dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption before and during pregnancy and the risks of low birthweight, preterm birth and small for gestational age (SGA) - a systematic review and meta-analyses. BJOG 2011; 118 (12) 1411-1421
• 77 Sanchez CE, Barry C, Sabhlok A. et al. Maternal pre-pregnancy obesity and child neurodevelopmental outcomes: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2018; 19 (04) 464-484
• 78 Teulings NEWD, Masconi KL, Ozanne SE, Aiken CE, Wood AM. Effect of interpregnancy weight change on perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19 (01) 386
• 79 Tobias DK, Zhang C, van Dam RM, Bowers K, Hu FB. Physical activity before and during pregnancy and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 (01) 223-229
• 80 Zhang C, Wu Y, Li S, Zhang D. Maternal prepregnancy obesity and the risk of shoulder dystocia: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2018; 125 (04) 407-413
• 81 Zhang H, Wang Q, He S. et al. Ambient air pollution and gestational diabetes mellitus: a review of evidence from biological mechanisms to population epidemiology. Sci Total Environ 2020; 719: 137349
• 82 Zhang L, Wang XH, Zheng XM. et al. Maternal gestational smoking, diabetes, alcohol drinking, pre-pregnancy obesity and the risk of cryptorchidism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One 2015; 10 (03) e0119006
• 83 Adane AA, Mishra GD, Tooth LR. Maternal pre-pregnancy obesity and childhood physical and cognitive development of children: a systematic review. Int J Obes 2016; 40 (11) 1608-1618
• 84 Hutcheon JA, Nelson HD, Stidd R, Moskosky S, Ahrens KA. Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse maternal outcomes in high-resource settings: an updated systematic review. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2019; 33 (01) O48-O59
• 85 Oostingh EC, Hall J, Koster MPH, Grace B, Jauniaux E, Steegers-Theunissen RPM. The impact of maternal lifestyle factors on periconception outcomes: a systematic review of observational studies. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38 (01) 77-94
• 86 Ramakrishnan U, Grant F, Goldenberg T, Zongrone A, Martorell R. Effect of women's nutrition before and during early pregnancy on maternal and infant outcomes: a systematic review. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2012; 26 (Suppl. 01) 285-301
• 87 Steinig J, Nagl M, Linde K, Zietlow G, Kersting A. Antenatal and postnatal depression in women with obesity: a systematic review. Arch Women Ment Health 2017; 20 (04) 569-585
• 88 Viswanathan M, Treiman KA, Kish-Doto J, Middleton JC, Coker-Schwimmer EJ, Nicholson WK. Folic acid supplementation for the prevention of neural tube defects: an updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2017; 317 (02) 190-203
• 89 Weng SF, Redsell SA, Swift JA, Yang M, Glazebrook CP. Systematic review and meta-analyses of risk factors for childhood overweight identifiable during infancy. Arch Dis Child 2012; 97 (12) 1019-1026
• 90 Woo Baidal JA, Locks LM, Cheng ER, Blake-Lamb TL, Perkins ME, Taveras EM. Risk factors for childhood obesity in the first 1,000 days: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2016; 50 (06) 761-779
• 91 Lin C-C, Wang J-D, Hsieh G-Y, Chang Y-Y, Chen P-C. Increased risk of death with congenital anomalies in the offspring of male semiconductor workers. Int J Occup Environ Health 2008; 14 (02) 112-116
• 92 Daraki V, Roumeliotaki T, Koutra K. et al. Effect of parental obesity and gestational diabetes on child neuropsychological and behavioral development at 4 years of age: the Rhea mother-child cohort, Crete, Greece. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2017; 26 (06) 703-714
• 93 Deng K, Liu Z, Lin Y. et al. Periconceptional paternal smoking and the risk of congenital heart defects: a case-control study. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2013; 97 (04) 210-216
• 94 Hoek J, Koster MPH, Schoenmakers S. et al. Does the father matter? The association between the periconceptional paternal folate status and embryonic growth. Fertil Steril 2019; 111 (02) 270-279
• 95 Steel A, Gavine A, Caut C, Schoenaker D. The Influence of Paternal Preconception Risk Factors or Health Behaviours and Pregnancy and Offspring Outcomes: A Protocol of a Systematic Review. CRD42021209994. PROSPERO; 2021
• 96 Shannon GD, Alberg C, Nacul L, Pashayan N. Preconception healthcare delivery at a population level: construction of public health models of preconception care. Matern Child Health J 2014; 18 (06) 1512-1531
• 97 Stephenson J, Heslehurst N, Hall J. et al. Before the beginning: nutrition and lifestyle in the preconception period and its importance for future health. Lancet 2018; 391 (10132): 1830-1841
• 98 Shawe J, Steegers EA, Verbiest S. Preconception Health and Care: A Life Course Approach. Springer; 2020
• 99 Atrash H, Jack B. Preconception care to improve pregnancy outcomes: the science. J Hum Growth Dev 2020; 30 (03) 334-341
• 100 American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Prepregnancy counseling: Committee Opinion No. 762. Fertil Steril 2019; 111 (01) 32-42
• 101 Johnson K, Posner SF, Biermann J. et al; CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group, Select Panel on Preconception Care. Recommendations to improve preconception health and health care—United States: report of the CDC/ATSDR preconception care work group and the select panel on preconception care. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55 (RR-6): 1-23
• 102 Public Health Agency of Canada. Preconception care. In: Family-Centred Maternity and Newborn Care: National Guidelines. Public Health Agency of Canada; 2017
• 103 Public Health England. Making the Case for Preconception Care: Planning and Preparation for Pregnancy to Improve Maternal and Child Health Outcomes. PHE London; 2018
• 104 Sheldon T. Netherlands considers introducing preconception care. BMJ 2007; 335 (7622): 686-687
• 105 Ebrahim SH, Lo SS-T, Zhuo J, Han J-Y, Delvoye P, Zhu L. Models of preconception care implementation in selected countries. Matern Child Health J 2006; 10 (5, Suppl): S37-S42
• 106 Dorney E, Black KI. Preconception care. Aust J Gen Pract 2018; 47 (07) 424-429
• 107 Preconception Advice: Clinical Guideline. South Australian Health, South Australian Maternal and Neonatal Clinical Network. 2015
• 108 Atrash H, Jack B. Preconception care to improve pregnancy outcomes: clinical practice guidelines. J Hum Growth Dev 2020; 30 (03) 407-416
• 109 Steel A, Adams J, Sibbritt D. The characteristics of women who use complementary medicine while attempting to conceive: results from a nationally representative sample of 13,224 Australian women. Womens Health Issues 2017; 27 (01) 67-74
• 110 Kizirian NV, Black KI, Musgrave L, Hespe C, Gordon A. Understanding and provision of preconception care by general practitioners. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 59 (06) 799-804
• 111 McKerracher L, Moffat T, Barker M, Williams D, Sloboda DM. Translating the developmental origins of health and disease concept to improve the nutritional environment for our next generations: a call for a reflexive, positive, multi-level approach. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2019; 10 (04) 420-428
• 112 Cairncross Z, Dennis CL, Brennenstuhl S. et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Preconception Health Knowledge Questionnaire. Am J Health Promot 2021; 35 (02) 172-178

Publication History

Article published online:
13 July 2022