Kahn, L. G., Loo, E., Mishra, G. D., & Stanford, J. B. (2024). Editorial: Opportunities and challenges of human preconception research. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 6, 1508151. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2024.1508151
Kahn LG, Loo E, Mishra GD, Stanford JB. Editorial: Opportunities and challenges of human preconception research. Front Reprod Health. 2024;6:1508151. doi:10.3389/frph.2024.1508151
Kahn, Linda G., et al. "Editorial: Opportunities and challenges of human preconception research." Frontiers in Reproductive Health, vol. 6, 2024, pp. 1508151.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Institute of Human Development and Potential (A*STAR) and Department of Paediatrics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Linked to ROR, the Research Organization Registry
RRM Academy Synopsis
Cohorts of people trying to conceive are highly selected
A 2024 editorial reviews four studies about getting ready for pregnancy. People who join studies about trying to conceive often differ from the general population in age, race, income and education. That shapes whose experience the research describes. The four studies cover mailed sample kits, app sign-ups, childhood stress and ways to share pregnancy-planning advice.
Study at a glance, 2024 editorial: People who join preconception studies differ from the general population. Source: Kahn LG et al., 2024, PMID 39665035.
Key Findings
Koenig and colleagues compare in-person and mailed blood and urine collection in the PRESTO cohort. They look at protocol design, who consented and cost per sample.
Jukic and colleagues emailed a random sample of Ovia Fertility app users, age ≥18 years, living in the United States. The pilot survey aims to profile users before a larger study.
Hipwell and colleagues study stress exposure in childhood and adolescence and birth outcomes, using the Pittsburgh Girls Study, which enrolled girls age 5–8 years.
Daly and colleagues held interviews with twenty women in the West of England on how they want preconception health advice delivered. Themes were accessibility, discretion and trustworthiness.
Few studies have followed mother, father and child together over time. The editorial names male preconception health and offspring outcomes as a gap for future work.
Interpretation
This 2024 editorial reviews four studies on planning a pregnancy, examining who takes part in this kind of research. People trying to conceive often differ from the general population in age, race, income and education. Many studies on time to pregnancy leave out single women, same-sex couples and people who used fertility treatments such as IVF. Clinic-based studies include only patients who already visit that clinic. Studies that look back at past births include only people who became pregnant. The authors call for larger studies that follow both partners and their children over time.
RRM Context
The editorial reports links between preconception health and fertility markers in men and women, such as semen quality and endometriosis. Restorative reproductive medicine views fertility as a sign of health in both partners. Studying couples together fits that approach.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
0190ak572 
