Danielle Schoenaker, Elizabeth M Lovegrove, Emma H Cassinelli, Jennifer Hall, Majel McGranahan, Laura McGowan, Helen Carr, Nisreen A Alwan, Judith Stephenson, Keith M Godfrey
{"title":"英国常规初级保健数据中报告的孕前指标及其与健康结果的关系:系统性综述。","authors":"Danielle Schoenaker, Elizabeth M Lovegrove, Emma H Cassinelli, Jennifer Hall, Majel McGranahan, Laura McGowan, Helen Carr, Nisreen A Alwan, Judith Stephenson, Keith M Godfrey","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Routine primary care data may be a valuable resource for preconception health research and to inform the provision of preconception care.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To review how primary care data could provide information on the prevalence of preconception indicators and examine associations with maternal and offspring health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review of observational studies using UK routine primary care data.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Literature searches were conducted in March 2023 using five databases to identify observational studies that used national primary care data from individuals aged 15-49 years. Preconception indicators were defined as medical, behavioural, and social factors that may impact future pregnancies; health outcomes included those that may occur during and after pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 5259 screened records, 42 articles were included. The prevalence of 37 preconception indicator measures was described for female patients, ranging from 0.01% for sickle cell disease to >20% for each of advanced maternal age, previous caesarean section (among those with a recorded pregnancy), overweight, obesity, smoking, depression, and anxiety (irrespective of pregnancy). Few studies reported indicators for male patients (<i>n</i> = 3) or associations with outcomes (<i>n</i> = 5). Most studies had a low risk of bias, but missing data may limit generalisability of the findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings demonstrated that routinely collected UK primary care data could be used to identify patients' preconception care needs. Linking primary care data with health outcomes collected in other datasets is underutilised, but could help to quantify how optimising preconception health and care could reduce adverse outcomes for mothers and children.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e129-e136"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Danielle Schoenaker, Elizabeth M Lovegrove, Emma H Cassinelli, Jennifer Hall, Majel McGranahan, Laura McGowan, Helen Carr, Nisreen A Alwan, Judith Stephenson, Keith M Godfrey\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Routine primary care data may be a valuable resource for preconception health research and to inform the provision of preconception care.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To review how primary care data could provide information on the prevalence of preconception indicators and examine associations with maternal and offspring health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review of observational studies using UK routine primary care data.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Literature searches were conducted in March 2023 using five databases to identify observational studies that used national primary care data from individuals aged 15-49 years. Preconception indicators were defined as medical, behavioural, and social factors that may impact future pregnancies; health outcomes included those that may occur during and after pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 5259 screened records, 42 articles were included. The prevalence of 37 preconception indicator measures was described for female patients, ranging from 0.01% for sickle cell disease to >20% for each of advanced maternal age, previous caesarean section (among those with a recorded pregnancy), overweight, obesity, smoking, depression, and anxiety (irrespective of pregnancy). Few studies reported indicators for male patients (<i>n</i> = 3) or associations with outcomes (<i>n</i> = 5). Most studies had a low risk of bias, but missing data may limit generalisability of the findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings demonstrated that routinely collected UK primary care data could be used to identify patients' preconception care needs. Linking primary care data with health outcomes collected in other datasets is underutilised, but could help to quantify how optimising preconception health and care could reduce adverse outcomes for mothers and children.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e129-e136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755573/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0082\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0082","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.
Background: Routine primary care data may be a valuable resource for preconception health research and to inform the provision of preconception care.
Aim: To review how primary care data could provide information on the prevalence of preconception indicators and examine associations with maternal and offspring health outcomes.
Design and setting: Systematic review of observational studies using UK routine primary care data.
Method: Literature searches were conducted in March 2023 using five databases to identify observational studies that used national primary care data from individuals aged 15-49 years. Preconception indicators were defined as medical, behavioural, and social factors that may impact future pregnancies; health outcomes included those that may occur during and after pregnancy.
Results: From 5259 screened records, 42 articles were included. The prevalence of 37 preconception indicator measures was described for female patients, ranging from 0.01% for sickle cell disease to >20% for each of advanced maternal age, previous caesarean section (among those with a recorded pregnancy), overweight, obesity, smoking, depression, and anxiety (irrespective of pregnancy). Few studies reported indicators for male patients (n = 3) or associations with outcomes (n = 5). Most studies had a low risk of bias, but missing data may limit generalisability of the findings.
Conclusion: The findings demonstrated that routinely collected UK primary care data could be used to identify patients' preconception care needs. Linking primary care data with health outcomes collected in other datasets is underutilised, but could help to quantify how optimising preconception health and care could reduce adverse outcomes for mothers and children.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.