TY - JOUR N1 - This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/ licences/by/4.0/). IS - 751 VL - 75 SP - e129 JF - British Journal of General Practice (BJGP) A1 - Schoenaker, Danielle A1 - Lovegrove, Elizabeth M A1 - Cassinelli, Emma H A1 - Hall, Jennifer A1 - Mcgranahan, Majel A1 - Mcgowan, Laura A1 - Carr, Helen A1 - Alwan, Nisreen A A1 - Stephenson, Judith A1 - Godfrey, Keith M SN - 0960-1643 UR - https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp.2024.0082 TI - Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review EP - e136 Y1 - 2025/02/01/ AV - public KW - Science & Technology KW - Life Sciences & Biomedicine KW - Primary Health Care KW - Medicine KW - General & Internal KW - General & Internal Medicine KW - general practice KW - preconception care KW - pregnancy KW - pregnancy outcomes KW - pre- pregnancy care KW - primary care KW - EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION KW - ORAL-CONTRACEPTIVES KW - WOMEN KW - POPULATION KW - PREGNANCY KW - RISK KW - PREVALENCE KW - PROVISION KW - PATTERNS KW - ENGLAND ID - discovery10204805 N2 - 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. PB - ROYAL COLL GENERAL PRACTITIONERS ER -