Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preconception lifestyle interventions on fertility, obstetric, fetal, anthropometric and metabolic outcomes in men and women

Lan, L, Harrison, CL, Misso, M, Hill, Briony, Teede, HJ, Mol, BW and Moran, LJ 2017, Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preconception lifestyle interventions on fertility, obstetric, fetal, anthropometric and metabolic outcomes in men and women, Human reproduction, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1925-1940, doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex241.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preconception lifestyle interventions on fertility, obstetric, fetal, anthropometric and metabolic outcomes in men and women
Author(s) Lan, L
Harrison, CL
Misso, M
Hill, BrionyORCID iD for Hill, Briony
Teede, HJ
Mol, BW
Moran, LJ
Journal name Human reproduction
Volume number 32
Issue number 9
Start page 1925
End page 1940
Total pages 16
Publisher Oxford University Press
Place of publication Oxford, Eng.
Publication date 2017-09
ISSN 1460-2350
Keyword(s) birth weight
lifestyle intervention
systematic review
Summary STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of preconception lifestyle interventions on live birth, birth weight and pregnancy rate? SUMMARY ANSWER: Lifestyle interventions showed benefits for weight loss and increased natural pregnancy rate, but not for live birth or birth weight. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Evidence on the practice and content of preconception counseling and interventions is variable and limited. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Systematic review and meta-analysis (MA). Main search terms were those related to preconception lifestyle. Database searched were Ovid MEDLINE(R), EBM Reviews, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL Plus. No language restriction was placed on the published articles. The final search was performed on 10 January 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were non-pregnant women of childbearing age intent on conceiving or their male partners. Exclusion criteria include participants with BMI < 18 kg/m2, animal trials, hereditary disorder in one or both partners and trials focusing solely on alcohol or smoking cessation/reduction, micronutrient supplementation, or diabetes control. Anthropometric, fertility, obstetric and fetal outcomes were assessed. Bias and quality assessments were performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The search returned 1802 articles and eight studies were included for analysis. Populations targeted were primarily overweight or obese subfertile women seeking reproductive assistance, with few community-based studies and none including men. MA showed greater reduction in weight (n = 3, P < 0.00001, mean difference: -3.48 kg, 95% CI: -4.29, -2.67, I2 = 0%) and BMI (n = 2, P < 0.00001, mean difference: -1.40 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.95, -0.84, I2 = 24%) with intervention. The only significant fertility outcome was an increased natural pregnancy rate (n = 2, P = 0.003, odds ratio: 1.87, CI: 1.24, 2.81, I2 = 0%). No differences were observed for ART adverse events, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications, delivery complications, live birth, premature birth, birth weight, neonatal mortality or anxiety. Risk of bias were high for three studies, moderate for three studies and low for two studies, Attrition bias was moderate or high in majority of studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Results were limited to subfertile or infertile women who were overweight or obese undergoing ART with no studies in men. The heterogeneous nature of the interventions in terms of duration and regimen means no conclusions could be made regarding the method or components of optimal lifestyle intervention. Attrition bias itself is an important factor that could affect efficacy of interventions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Existing preconception lifestyle interventions primarily targeted overweight and obese subfertile women undergoing ART with a focus on weight loss. It is important to note that natural conception increased with lifestyle intervention. This emphasizes the need for further research exploring optimal components of preconception lifestyle interventions in the broader population and on the optimal nature, intensity and timing of interventions. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No conflict of interest declared. C.L.H. is a National Heart Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow. B.H. is funded by an Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. H.J.T. and B.W.M. hold NHMRC Practitioner fellowships. L.J.M. is supported by a SACVRDP Fellowship; a program collaboratively funded by the NHF, the South Australian Department of Health and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015023952.
Language eng
DOI 10.1093/humrep/dex241
Field of Research 111716 Preventive Medicine
170106 Health, Clinical and Counselling Psychology
16 Studies In Human Society
11 Medical And Health Sciences
Socio Economic Objective 920401 Behaviour and Health
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2017, The Author
Persistent URL

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Psychology
Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 23 Abstract Views, 2 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 30 May 2018, 14:38:01 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact