Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-n9pbb Total loading time: 0.389 Render date: 2021-09-22T23:18:27.252Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Characterising and monitoring preconception health in England: a review of national population-level indicators and core data sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2021

Danielle A.J.M. Schoenaker*
Affiliation:
School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
Judith Stephenson
Affiliation:
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
Anne Connolly
Affiliation:
Bevan Healthcare, Bradford, UK
Sally Shillaker
Affiliation:
Academy of Research and Improvement, Solent NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK
Sarah Fishburn
Affiliation:
South East Clinical Delivery and Networks, NHS England and Improvement, Oxford, UK
Mary Barker
Affiliation:
NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Keith M. Godfrey
Affiliation:
NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Nisreen A. Alwan
Affiliation:
School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Wessex, Southampton, UK
*Corresponding
Address for correspondence: Danielle Schoenaker, School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, United Kingdom. Email: D.Schoenaker@soton.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Initiatives to optimise preconception health are emerging following growing recognition that this may improve the health and well-being of women and men of reproductive age and optimise health in their children. To inform and evaluate such initiatives, guidance is required on indicators that describe and monitor population-level preconception health. We searched relevant databases and websites (March 2021) to identify national and international preconception guidelines, recommendations and policy reports. These were reviewed to identify preconception indicators. Indicators were aligned with a measure describing the prevalence of the indicator as recorded in national population-based data sources in England. From 22 documents reviewed, we identified 66 indicators across 12 domains. Domains included wider (social/economic) determinants of health; health care; reproductive health and family planning; health behaviours; environmental exposures; cervical screening; immunisation and infections; mental health, physical health; medication and genetic risk. Sixty-five of the 66 indicators were reported in at least one national routine health data set, survey or cohort study. A measure of preconception health assessment and care was not identified in any current national data source. Perspectives from three (healthcare) professionals described how indicator assessment and monitoring may influence patient care and inform awareness campaign development. This review forms the foundation for developing a national surveillance system for preconception health in England. The identified indicators can be assessed using national data sources to determine the population’s preconception needs, improve patient care, inform and evaluate new campaigns and interventions and enhance accountability from responsible agencies to improve preconception health.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease

Introduction

The health and health behaviours of women and men prior to pregnancy are key determinants of a successful pregnancy and the health of women, men and their offspring in the short- and long-term. Reference Fleming, Watkins and Velazquez1,Reference Stephenson, Heslehurst and Hall2 There is now ample evidence from developmental biology and epidemiological studies that improving preconception health represents an opportunity to reduce maternal and infant mortality and morbidity, prevent non-communicable disease in parents themselves and their offspring and improve the overall health of at least two generations. The importance of optimal preconception health has been recognised in many national and international guidelines, position statements and policy reports. These provide clinical guidance on providing preconception care (PCC) to individuals planning pregnancy, 3-9 outline how primary care, maternity and community services may integrate PCC into existing services 5,6,9-12 and call for continued efforts to improve the health of the population more broadly. 4-6,9,10,12,13

While there has to date been little progress on widespread implementation of PCC and preconception health programmes and interventions, advocacy for preconception health initiatives is increasing internationally. Examples include a focus on the health of girls and women during the adolescent and reproductive years in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 14 and in the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescent’s Health 2016–2030. 15 As a result, interventions that increase awareness of the importance of preconception health and that promote pregnancy planning and preparation are likely to be developed to meet the goals set out in these global strategies. National and local programmes and interventions are emerging 10,Reference Jacob, Newell and Hanson16,17 and already being tested and implemented in some countries such as the USA, China, Belgium and the Netherlands. Reference Ebrahim, Lo, Zhuo, Han, Delvoye and Zhu18-Reference Walani, Moley, Shawe, Steegers and Verbiest20 To inform and evaluate such initiatives and to track progress made towards optimising preconception health, there is a need for guidance on the assessment and monitoring of population-level indicators that measure the state of preconception health.

In the UK, the Preconception Partnership was established in 2018 as a multi-disciplinary advocacy coalition with the aim to improve preconception health. The Partnership has set out a conceptual framework for reporting and monitoring of preconception indicators in England based on a set of routinely collected data sets, or ‘core metrics’. Reference Stephenson, Vogel and Hall21 We define preconception indicators as medical, behavioural and social risk factors or exposures as well as wider determinants of health that may impact potential future pregnancies among all women and men of reproductive age. 10,17 National data on these indicators would facilitate characterisation of the nation’s preconception health, monitoring of trends and identification of inequalities, to incite action from local and national governments and organisations to deliver resources for effective and appropriate interventions. Internationally, there is currently no comprehensive and recognised set of preconception indicators that could fulfil these functions using data sources available at a national level in countries such as England.

To inform the reporting of population-level preconception health in England, we aimed to conduct a review of relevant guideline and policy documents to identify a comprehensive set of indicators and to map these against national data sources currently available. Moreover, we provide perspectives from (healthcare) professionals to illustrate how findings from population-level surveillance of preconception health may be used to inform the development of interventions and campaigns and improve patient care in primary care and community settings.

Methods

Review of preconception guidelines, recommendations and policy reports

Search strategy

An electronic search was carried out in Google and Google Scholar in March 2021 by DS, and relevant guideline repositories and websites of professional organisations/associations and ministries of health were searched, to identify publicly available preconception guidelines, recommendations, position statements and policy reports in England and internationally. The following search terms were used: Preconception; Preconceptual; Pre-pregnancy; Before pregnancy; Pregnancy planning; Preparing for pregnancy AND Guidelines; Recommendations; Policy.

Eligibility criteria

Guidelines, statements and policy documents aimed at the public or patients, healthcare professionals and governments reporting on preconception indicators that could be assessed in individuals (i.e. not for example at health service or household level) were considered relevant. In addition, preconception recommendations published in English by other countries were included to identify additional preconception indicators reported internationally but not included in documents relevant to England. International documents were not included if no additional preconception indicators were identified beyond those already reported in documents relevant to England. Electronically available information considered relevant for identifying preconception indicators included documents and other online information sources from government organisations, national healthcare organisations, professional bodies and societies and charitable organisations.

Data extraction

Key features of the guidelines, statements and policy documentation (including the overall topic, the target audience(s) and country) and all preconception indicators mentioned in these sources were extracted by DS. The identified preconception indicators were grouped into overarching domains based on shared characteristics. Measures that describe the prevalence of the indicators were formulated based on the guidelines and recommendations reviewed.

Aligning preconception indicators with core data sources

Following identification of preconception indicators, population-based national data sources from which prevalence data on indicators could be extracted were identified through known UK websites providing information on national data sets, national data reports or surveillance of health indicators. Examples include websites from NHS Digital, 22 the UK Data Service, 23 Public Health Outcomes Framework 24 and Office for National Statistics. 25 Eligible data sources included national routine data sets, national surveys and national cohort studies. We excluded data sources if they did not include individual-level data for women and/or men of reproductive age (defined as aged 16–45 years 3 ), or if data were not directly available or accessible through online data reports or tools. For each data source, information was summarised on the representativeness of the population, the method and frequency of data collection, reporting of relevant preconception indicators and data access.

Preconception indicators were aligned with a data source where possible. If an indicator was not available but a comparable measure was reported in a data source, the comparable measure was included to reflect an approximation of the preconception indicator as specified in guideline and policy documents.

Results

Preconception indicators

The search for publicly available guidance on preconception health in England identified 15 clinical guidance or recommendation documents, three position statements, two policy reports, one e-Learning programme and online information from one charitable organisation (Supplementary Table S1). Guidance was aimed at healthcare professionals, commissioners and providers or the public and was relevant to the general population of reproductive-aged women and men, individuals planning pregnancy and/or populations with pre-existing medical conditions or at high risk of an adverse pregnancy or birth outcome. International guidance related to preconception health that reported additional indicators not described in documents relating to England included clinical preconception care recommendations from the USA and Canada, a position statement from Australia and a policy brief from the World Health Organization (WHO) (Supplementary Table S1). Examples of international documents that were identified but that did not report preconception indicators not already reported in documents relevant to England included the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) Good Clinical Practice Recommendation on Preconception Care, 26 a call to action for preconception health promotion and care by the Ontario Public Health Association 27 and a report commissioned by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on Preconception health, education and care in Scotland. 28

Preconception indicators were grouped into 12 domains containing a total of 66 indicators (Table 1). Detailed measures formulated based on guidelines and recommendations can be found in Supplementary Table S2. Several preconception indicators could be assessed using multiple measures, and separate measures were formulated for women and men, for high-risk groups and categorical indicators (such as body mass index classifications) based on clinical guidance. While guidance was mainly focused on preconception health of women, some clinical guidelines, 3,4,6,12,29,30 a Clinical Effectiveness Unit position statement 12 and Tommy’s charity 31 reported on preconception indicators relevant to men.

Table 1. Summary overview of identified preconception indicators and their recording in national data sources

Abbreviations: ALAS, Active Lives Adult Survey; BCS70, 1970 British Cohort Study; CPRD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink; CSDS, Community Services Dataset; HES, Hospital Episode Statistics; HFEA, Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority; HSE, Health Survey for England; MCS, Millennium Cohort Study; MSDS, Maternity Services Dataset; Natsal, British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles; NCARDRS, National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service; NCSRAS, National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service; NDA, National Diabetes Audit; NDNS, National Diet and Nutrition Survey; NHSDS, NHS Dental Statistics; ONS, Office for National Statistics; RCGP, Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre database; SRHAD, Sexual and Reproductive Health Activity Dataset.

Core data sources

National data sources with relevant information on preconception health included 13 routine health data sets, five surveys and two cohort studies (Table 2). Routine health data sets cover data reported in primary care, hospital, maternity, community and specialist health services, disease registries and the census. National surveys are repeated cross-sectional surveys among a random representative sample, and national cohort studies include longitudinal population-based studies following the lives of people born in a specific week or year from birth onwards at 2–10 year intervals. Data for surveys and cohort studies are collected through questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, physical examinations and biological samples. Anonymised annual data for individuals across their reproductive years are available to policymakers and researchers for the majority of data sources following protocol approval through NHS Digital or the UK Data Service (Table 2). Key statistics from most routine data sets and surveys are published online at least annually. These reports do not cover all indicators measured in each data source and are generally not aggregated specifically for women and men of reproductive age.

Table 2. Core data sources for the reporting and monitoring of preconception indicators in England

GP, general practitioner; NHS, National Health Service.

Data sources that were identified, but not considered relevant include the General Practice Quality Outcomes Framework (includes practice-level but not individual-patient-level data on relevant preconception indicators), the Mental Health Services Data Set (includes data on care provided to people using mental health services, but no individual-level data on diagnosis of mental health conditions) and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Registry (IBDR) (no individual-patient-level data available for research or accessible online).

From the total number of 66 identified preconception indicators, 65 were reported in at least one data source (Table 1, Supplementary Table S1). Collectively, national routine data sets include data for all domains and nearly all indicators except measures on adverse childhood experiences, preconception assessment and care, pregnancy intention, dietary intake and physical activity. Data on indicators related to health behaviours including diet and physical activity are collected in detail and through validated methods in surveys and cohort studies. A measure of preconception health assessment and care was not identified in any current national data source.

Discussion

This review is the first critical step in the process of developing a national surveillance system for preconception health in England. Based on national and international guidelines and policy documents, we identified a comprehensive set of preconception indicators that can be used to characterise and monitor the health, health behaviours and their wider determinants among women and men of reproductive age using available national population-based data sources. A national picture of preconception health can improve our understanding of the population’s preconception needs, inform the development and evaluation of new campaigns and interventions, and thereby facilitate translation of evidence into actions to improve preconception health.

Existing public health surveillance systems in England, such as those managed by Public Health England 24 and the Office for National Statistics, 25 produce and publish regularly updated population-level data on a large number of indicators across a broad range of topics. These include wider determinants of health and indicators relevant to preconception health such as obesity and smoking prevalence. We present an extension to these existing surveillance efforts based on indicators that are relevant to people of reproductive age and that are recommended as indicators of optimal preconception health and care based on clinical guidance and policy reports. Our review identified a set of 66 preconception indicators across 12 domains covering wider determinants of health and medical, behavioural, social and environmental risk factors. Measures that describe the prevalence of each indicator were formulated based on guidelines and recommendations reviewed and are specific to women or men and high-risk groups where relevant.

Although not all indicators identified in our review are currently recorded in a data source representative of the English population of women and men of reproductive age, 65 of the 66 indicators are assessed and can already be described and monitored at a national level. A measure of preconception health assessment and care is not currently captured in any national data source, and pregnancy intention is not recorded in a routine data set or annual survey. These measures should be considered for inclusion in routine data sets or annual surveys in the future to allow for comprehensive and timely monitoring and evaluation.

For the first time, we describe indicators relevant to men’s preconception health and indicators that can be measured at a national level rather than a local or state level. Indicators were aligned with a range of national data sources, including routine data sets, surveys and cohort studies. The majority of indicators were recorded in at least one routine health data set commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS), which is a government-sponsored universal healthcare system and provider of the majority of care in England. The advantage of monitoring preconception indicators through a combination of these data sources from primary care, hospital, maternity, community and specialist health services is the wide population coverage with information on nearly all residents of England. National surveys and cohort studies complement routine data with indicators on health behaviours such as diet and physical activity comprehensively assessed among large nationally representative samples of the population.

Population-level surveillance indicators for preconception health and care have also been identified in the US by the National Preconception Health and Health Care (PCHHC) Initiative. Reference Broussard, Sappenfield, Fussman, Kroelinger and Grigorescu32 The indicator selection process by the PCHHC Initiative involved a consensus-based selection of 11 broad priority areas (domains), a review of state-based data systems and identification of available measures relevant to each domain. Compared with the domains defined in our review, the PCHHC Initiative did not select environmental exposures, cervical screening, medication and genetic risk as priority areas, but identified self-rated general health status as an additional priority area and separated the health behaviours domain into tobacco, alcohol and substance use and nutrition and physical activity. A total of 96 measures were identified by the PCHHC Initiative, and these were reduced to 45 measures based on evaluation of each measure against predetermined criteria (such as data quality and availability of comparable indicators across states), followed by a Delphi process among representatives from seven participating states to retain or exclude measures. Reference Broussard, Sappenfield, Fussman, Kroelinger and Grigorescu32 The 45 measures have more recently also been evaluated and condensed to ten preconception health indicators Reference Robbins, D’Angelo and Zapata33 and 30 preconception care indicators. 34 This comprehensive consensus building process may explain why the measures identified by the PCHHC Initiative were more restricted compared to our overall set of identified indicators. For example, the PCHHC Initiative indicators were relevant to women only, did not include medication use, immunisation, genetic factors and environmental exposures and captured a limited number of measures to describe wider determinant of health and physical (chronic) health conditions. In line with our review, the PCHHC Initiative also identified preconception assessment and care (preconception counselling) as a relevant indicator. This is not currently reported in national data sources in England, but recorded in the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, which is a US state-based survey conducted between two and nine months postpartum among women with a live birth. Reference Broussard, Sappenfield, Fussman, Kroelinger and Grigorescu32

There are some limitations and challenges to our review process and identified set of indicators. First, this is a scoping review and academic/scientific databases were not searched. We aimed to identify indicators based on grey literature including guidelines, recommendations, policy reports and other non-scientific documents from government organisations, national healthcare organisations, professional bodies and societies and charitable organisations. These documents were of interest as they are intended for the public or patients, healthcare professionals and governments, who may directly act on recommendations. These recommendations may thereby result in changes in preconception health that can be measured as part of surveillance. While the comprehensive list of indicators may not be exhaustive, it provides a strong foundation for the development of a preconception health surveillance system in England. Moreover, as evidence and awareness on the benefits of improved preconception health and care continues to grow, it is likely that indicators and measures will expand and be refined over time. Our identified set of indicators will therefore need regular review and updating. Furthermore, the aim of this review was to inform surveillance of indicators that can be assessed at the individual-level and indicators or measures at health service, practice, school, household or family-level were therefore beyond the scope of this review.

A number of indicators identified in our review are not relevant to all women of reproductive age, but are specific to women planning to become pregnant in the near future. Examples include taking a daily folic acid supplement, avoiding vitamin A (containing) supplements and adjusting medication that is not recommended in pregnancy. National routine data sources in England do not currently assess pregnancy intention, although there are moves to include such a measure in the national maternity services data set. Reference Stephenson, Vogel and Hall21 While the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal) includes a measure of pregnancy intention, this survey is only conducted every 10 years and includes a limited number of other preconception indicators that could be described and monitored among women with planned pregnancies. Until routine data sources include a measure of pregnancy intention, a comprehensive set of preconception indicators cannot be described and monitored separately in women intending to become pregnant. Although data on contraceptive use may provide an estimation of women ‘at risk’ of pregnancy, a better measure to assess pregnancy intention routinely is needed and research is underway to validate such a measure in the UK. Reference Rocca, Ralph, Wilson, Gould and Foster35 Meanwhile, GPs or other primary care professionals can simply ask women “…and are you thinking of having a(nother) baby in the next year or so?”, which can be incorporated as part of routine consultations to identify couples intending to become pregnant. Reference Stephenson, Schoenaker and Hinton36 Since the majority of indicators are relevant to the health and well-being of all people of reproductive age, optimising risk factors may improve pregnancy and birth outcomes if an intended or unintended pregnancy occurs, as well as a woman’s health regardless of a future pregnancy.

In addition to the current lack of data on one indictor, national data sets may be subject to data quality issues. Incomplete data are a common problem, and depending on the amount and reason of missing data, this may result in biased prevalence estimates. Data quality is generally high in, for example, primary care and maternity data sets due to financial incentives to practices and service providers for achieving set targets. However, data from multiple sources may need to be combined to obtain more accurate estimates for some indicators, such as contraceptive use information from primary care, hospital and sexual and reproductive health services data sets. Assessment of indicators may change over time, for example, as a result of changes in quality indicators for primary care, data structures and content requirements for health services, or survey questions. This may impact the accuracy of monitoring of changes in preconception health and care over time.

While acknowledging these potential limitations, surveillance of preconception indicators can be used to provide a snapshot of the health and health behaviours of women and men of reproductive age. When these indicators are stratified by wider determinants of health, they provide an understanding of needs and disparities in health and health care among subpopulations. Researchers may use the overview of indicators to identify outcomes to be targeted and assessed in intervention studies that aim to improve preconception health. Moreover, routine reporting on population-level indicators that benchmark the health of reproductive-aged people can be used to enhance accountability from governments and other relevant agencies for delivering interventions that remove barriers and support all women and men to improve their health. Reference Stephenson, Vogel and Hall21 The importance and utility of preconception health surveillance is further highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, when the prevalence of many indicators identified in this review is likely affected as a result of the stay-at-home advice and changes in access to health care services. 37 Investment in efficient routine data collection and monitoring of population, maternal and child health is recommended to determine the immediate and longer-term effects of COVID-19 and the additional needs of people of reproductive age. Reference Jacob, Briana and Di Renzo38,Reference Roseboom, Ozanne and Godfrey39

The implications of preconception surveillance extend beyond research and policy advocacy, to directly and indirectly improve patient care and inform the development and evaluation of education and awareness campaigns. Discussions with relevant stakeholders (Fig. 1) revealed that, for example, in primary care, surveillance data may indirectly influence patient care through the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF). 40 This is a voluntary annual reward and financial incentive programme for general practitioner (GP) services in England, in which practices can score points based on achievements against a set of indicators. The QOF does not currently include preconception indicators, but high prevalence or increasing trends may inform the inclusion of specific indicators, and thereby contribute to improved provision of preconception care among GPs. Reference Ma, Cecil, Bottle, French and Saxena41 Moreover, health visitors in England contribute to the provision of interconception care to mothers with infants and young children and their partners. Prevalence and trend data on pre- and interconception indicators may inform risk assessments performed by health visitors and indicate the need to develop resources to address issues that are (increasingly) common and may affect the next pregnancy. In addition to patient care, surveillance of preconception indicators may be used to inform campaign development and evaluation by identifying common indicators that could be targeted and would be relevant to a large proportion of the population. Prevalence rates of indicators may also be communicated to the target population for education purposes and to normalise sensitive topics such as mental health issues.

Fig. 1. Professional perspectives illustrating the value of population-level surveillance of preconception indicators.

The identification of a comprehensive list of preconception indicators and determining their availability in national data sources are a first step towards national surveillance of preconception health in England. Analyses of routine health data sets are currently underway to obtain national prevalence estimates of preconception indicators. Further planned work includes linkage of these data sets to allow analyses of associations between preconception indicators and maternal and child health outcomes to provide evidence on the potential impact of improved preconception health. Our findings on the prevalence of indicators and strength of associations with relevant outcomes – together with considerations of data quality, modifiability and input from stakeholder and public consultations – will inform the prioritisation of a reduced set of key indicators for ongoing surveillance of preconception health in England. A dashboard bringing indicators from multiple sources together through an interactive online platform will make findings readily available to health care providers, policy makers, the public and relevant stakeholders. Informed by the list of preconception indicators presented in this review and by the PCHHC Initiative, we recommend other countries follow a similar process to develop a surveillance system for preconception health based on available regional or national data sets.

Conclusion

Several national and international guideline and policy documents emphasise the need to optimise preconception health to prevent adverse outcomes in the next generation and improve the overall health and well-being of women and men of reproductive age irrespective of any pregnancies they may have. Nearly all preconception indicators identified from these documents can be described and monitored using national data sources in England. Measures of preconception health assessment and care and pregnancy intention are not currently annually recorded in any national data source and should be considered for inclusion in routine data sets or annual surveys in the future. Monitoring of a comprehensive set of preconception indicators may contribute to informing patient care, developing and evaluating public awareness campaigns and strengthening advocacy efforts for government resources and action. This work informs the next steps towards developing a national surveillance system and to improve preconception health in England.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040174421000258

Acknowledgements

The UK Preconception Partnership is a coalition of groups representing different aspects of preconception health in women and their partners, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, Public Health England, Tommy’s charity and academics in reproductive and sexual health, obstetrics and gynaecology, population health and epidemiology, nutritional sciences and behavioural sciences and education in schools.

Financial support

DS is supported by the NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20004). KG is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12011/4), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0515-10042), NIHR Southampton 1000DaysPlus Global Nutrition Research Group (17/63/154), NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20004), the European Union (Erasmus+ Programme ImpENSA) and the British Heart Foundation (RG/15/17/3174).

Conflicts of interest

KG has received reimbursement for speaking at conferences sponsored by companies selling nutritional products, and is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, BenevolentAI Bio Ltd. and Danone. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

Fleming, TP, Watkins, AJ, Velazquez, MA, et al. Origins of lifetime health around the time of conception: causes and consequences. Lancet. 2018; 391, 18421852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 18301841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Pre-conception – advice and management. 2019. Available from: https://cks.nice.org.uk/pre-conception-advice-and-management. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
National Health Service (NHS). Planning your pregnancy. 2020. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/planning-pregnancy/. [page last reviewed 21/01/2020] [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Themed Review: Better Beginnings. 2017. Available from: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Better-beginnings-web-interactive.pdf. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommendations to Improve Preconception Health and Health Care - United States. A Report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care. 2006. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5506a1.htm. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Public Health Agency of Canada. Family-Centred Maternity and Newborn Care: National Guidelines. Chapter 2. Preconception care. 2019. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/maternity-newborn-care-guidelines-chapter-2.html. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Jack, BW, Atrash, H, Coonrod, DV, Moos, MK, O’Donnell, J, Johnson, K. The clinical content of preconception care: an overview and preparation of this supplement. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(6 Suppl 2), S266S279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (WHO). Preconception care. Maximizing the gains for maternal and child health. Policy Brief. 2012. Available from: https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/preconception_care_policy_brief.pdf. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Public Health England. Making the case for preconception care. 2018. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729018/Making_the_case_for_preconception_care.pdf [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG). Pre-pregnancy counselling - statement. 2017. Available from: https://ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical-Obstetrics/Pre-pregnancy-Counselling-(C-Obs-3a)-review-July-2017_1.pdf?ext=.pdf. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH). Statement from the Clinical Effectiveness Unit. Pre-conception Care. 2016. Available from: https://www.fsrh.org/standards-and-guidance/documents/pre-conception-care-care-ceu-statement-august-2016/. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Clinical guidance. Committee opinion of preconception counceling. 2019. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/01/prepregnancy-counseling. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
United Nations. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015. New York: United Nations. Available from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO). Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescent’s Health, 2016–2030, 2015. New York: United Nations. Available from https://www.who.int/life-course/partners/global-strategy/en/. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Jacob, CM, Newell, M-L, Hanson, M. Narrative review of reviews of preconception interventions to prevent an increased risk of obesity and non-communicable diseases in children. Obes Rev. 2019; 20(S1), 517. doi: 10.1111/obr.12769 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Public Health England. Health of women before and during pregnancy: health behaviours, risk factors and inequalities. 2019. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844210/Health_of_women_before_and_during_pregnancy_2019.pdf. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
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), S37S42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wald, NJ, Morris, JK, Blakemore, C. Public health failure in the prevention of neural tube defects: time to abandon the tolerable upper intake level of folate. Public Health Rev. 2018; 39, 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walani, SR, Moley, KH. Global strategies for change. In Preconception Health and Care: A Life Course Approach (eds. Shawe, J, Steegers, E, Verbiest, S), 2020; pp. 287297. Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, J, Vogel, C, Hall, J, et al. Preconception health in England: a proposal for annual reporting with core metrics. Lancet. 2019; 393, 22622271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Health Service (NHS) Digital. Data collections and data sets. Available from https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
UK Data Service. Available from https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Public Health England. Public Health Outcomes Framework. Available from: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/public-health-outcomes-framework. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics (ONS). Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/. [accessed 22/03/2021]Google Scholar
Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI). Good Clinical Practice Recommendation on Preconception Care. 2015. Available from: https://www.fogsi.org/gcpr-preconception-care/. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Ontario Public Health Association. Enhancing the Health of Ontarians: A Call to Action for Preconception Health Promotion & Care, 2014. Toronto, ON. Available from: https://opha.on.ca/getmedia/2da52762-6614-40f7-97ff-f2a5043dea21/OPHA-Shift-Enhancing-the-health-of-Ontarians-A-call-to-action-for-preconception-health-promotion-and-care_1.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
National Health Service (NHS) Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Prepared for pregnancy? Preconception health,education and care in Scotland. 2016. Available from: https://www.stor.scot.nhs.uk/handle/11289/578820. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Before pregnancy. 2020. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/preconception/index.html. [page last reviewed February 2020] [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Fertility problems: assessment and treatment. Clinical guideline [CG156]. 2013. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156. [last updated 06/09/2017] [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Tommy’s. Planning a pregnancy. 2017. Available from: https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/planning-pregnancy [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Broussard, DL, Sappenfield, WB, Fussman, C, Kroelinger, CD, Grigorescu, V. Core state preconception health indicators: a voluntary, multi-state selection process. Matern Child Health J. 2011; 15, 158168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbins, CL, D’Angelo, D, Zapata, L, et al. Preconception Health Indicators for Public Health Surveillance. J Womens Health. 2018; 27, 430443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Surveillance and Research Workgroup and Clinical Workgroup of the National Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative. Surveillance indicators for women’s preconception care. J Womens Health. 2020; 29, 910918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocca, CH, Ralph, LJ, Wilson, M, Gould, H, Foster, DG. Psychometric evaluation of an instrument to measure prospective pregnancy preferences: the desire to avoid pregnancy scale. Med Care. 2019; 57, 152158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephenson, J, Schoenaker, D, Hinton, W, et al. A wake-up call for preconception health: a clinical review. Br J Gen Pract. 2021; 71(706), 233236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Public Health England. Wider Impacts of COVID-19 on Health (WICH): monitoring tool. Available from: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/covid19. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Jacob, CM, Briana, DD, Di Renzo, GC, et al. Building resilient societies after COVID-19: the case for investing in maternal, neonatal, and child health. Lancet Public Health. 2020; 5, e624e627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roseboom, TJ, Ozanne, SE, Godfrey, KM, et al. Unheard, unseen and unprotected: DOHaD council’s call for action to protect the younger generation from the long-term effects of COVID-19. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2021; 12, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Health Service (NHS) Digital. Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF). Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/quality-outcomes-framework-qof. [page last edited 21/08/2020] [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Ma, R, Cecil, E, Bottle, A, French, R, Saxena, S. Impact of a pay-for-performance scheme for long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) advice on contraceptive uptake and abortion in British primary care: an interrupted time series study. PLoS Med. 2020; 17, e1003333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Diabetes in pregnancy: management from preconception to the postnatal period. NICE guideline [NG3]. 2015. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng3. [last updated 26/08/2015] [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Hypertension in pregnancy. Quality standard [QS35]. 2013. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs35. [last updated 23/07/2019] [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
National Health Service (NHS) Health Education England. E-learning programme on Healthy Pregnancy Pathways: Pre-conception care. Available from: https://www.e-lfh.org.uk/heathy-pregnancy-pathway/pre-conception/index.html. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Eating disorders. 2019. Available from: https://cks.nice.org.uk/eating-disorders#!scenario:1. [last revised July 2019] [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Cardiac disease and pregnancy. Good practice no. 13. 2011. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/goodpractice13cardiacdiseaseandpregnancy.pdf. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Gardiner, PM, Nelson, L, Shellhaas, CS, et al. The clinical content of preconception care: nutrition and dietary supplements. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(6 Suppl 2), S345S356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Weight management before, during and after pregnancy. Public health guideline [PH27]. 2010. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph27. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Frey, KA, Navarro, SM, Kotelchuck, M, Lu, MC. The clinical content of preconception care: preconception care for men. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(6 Suppl 2), S389S395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Endometriosis: diagnosis and management. NICE guideline [NG73]. 2017. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng73. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH). Clinical Guideline: SRH for Individuals with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). 2016. Available from: https://www.fsrh.org/standards-and-guidance/documents/ceu-clinical-guidance-srh-ibd/. [accessed 22/03/2021].Google Scholar
Atrash, H, Jack, B. Preconception care to improve pregnancy outcomes: clinical practice guidelines. J Hum Growth Dev. 2020; 30, 407416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lusignan, S, Correa, A, Smith, GE, et al. RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre: 50 years’ surveillance of influenza, infections, and respiratory conditions. Br J Gen Pract. 2017; 67, 440441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrett, E, Gallagher, AM, Bhaskaran, K, et al. Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol. 2015; 44, 827836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Summary overview of identified preconception indicators and their recording in national data sources

Figure 1

Table 2. Core data sources for the reporting and monitoring of preconception indicators in England

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Professional perspectives illustrating the value of population-level surveillance of preconception indicators.

Supplementary material: File

Schoenaker et al. supplementary material

Schoenaker et al. supplementary material

Download Schoenaker et al. supplementary material(File)
File 115 KB
You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Characterising and monitoring preconception health in England: a review of national population-level indicators and core data sources
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Characterising and monitoring preconception health in England: a review of national population-level indicators and core data sources
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Characterising and monitoring preconception health in England: a review of national population-level indicators and core data sources
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *