Background This systematic review summarises association between short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal health outcomes in high‐resource settings to inform recommendations for healthy birth spacing for the United States. Methods Five databases and a previous systematic review were searched for relevant articles published between 1966 and 1 May 2017. We included studies meeting the following criteria: (a) reporting of perinatal health outcomes after a short interpregnancy interval since last livebirth; (b) conducted within a high‐resource setting; and (c) estimates were adjusted for maternal age and at least one socio‐economic factor. Results Nine good‐quality and 18 fair‐quality studies were identified. Interpregnancy intervals <6 months were associated with a clinically and statistically significant increased risk of adverse outcomes in studies of preterm birth (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in 10 of 14 studies); spontaneous preterm birth (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in one of two studies); small‐for‐gestational age (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in 5 of 11 studies); and infant mortality (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in four of four studies), while four studies of perinatal death showed no association. Interpregnancy intervals of 6‐11 and 12‐17 months generally had smaller point estimates and confidence intervals that included the null. Most studies were population‐based and few included adjustment for detailed measures of key confounders. Conclusions In high‐resource settings, there is some evidence showing interpregnancy intervals <6 months since last livebirth are associated with increased risks for preterm birth, small‐for‐gestational age and infant death; however, results were inconsistent. Additional research controlling for confounding would further inform recommendations for healthy birth spacing for the United States.

No abstract

Background Meta‐analyses of observational studies have shown that women with a shorter interpregnancy interval (the time from delivery to start of a subsequent pregnancy) are more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm delivery or small for gestational age birth, than women who space their births further apart. However, the studies used to inform these estimates have methodological shortcomings. Methods In this commentary, we summarise the discussions of an expert workgroup describing good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies of interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal health outcomes. Results We argue that inferences drawn from research in this field will be improved by careful attention to elements such as: (a) refining the research question to clarify whether the goal is to estimate a causal effect vs describe patterns of association; (b) using directed acyclic graphs to represent potential causal networks and guide the analytic plan of studies seeking to estimate causal effects; (c) assessing how miscarriages and pregnancy terminations may have influenced interpregnancy interval classifications; (d) specifying how key factors such as previous pregnancy loss, pregnancy intention, and maternal socio‐economic position will be considered; and (e) examining if the association between interpregnancy interval and perinatal outcome differs by factors such as maternal age. Conclusion This commentary outlines the discussions of this recent expert workgroup, and describes several suggested principles for study design and analysis that could mitigate many potential sources of bias.

Background Currently, no federal guidelines provide recommendations on healthy birth spacing for women in the United States. This systematic review summarises associations between short interpregnancy intervals and adverse maternal outcomes to inform the development of birth spacing recommendations for the United States. Methods PubMed/Medline, POPLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and a previous systematic review were searched to identify relevant articles published from 1 January 2006 and 1 May 2017. Included studies reported maternal health outcomes following a short versus longer interpregnancy interval, were conducted in high‐resource settings, and adjusted estimates for at least maternal age. Two investigators independently assessed study quality and applicability using established methods. Results Seven cohort studies met inclusion criteria. There was limited but consistent evidence that short interpregnancy interval is associated with increased risk of precipitous labour and decreased risks of labour dystocia. There was some evidence that short interpregnancy interval is associated with increased risks of subsequent pre‐pregnancy obesity and gestational diabetes, and decreased risk of preeclampsia. Among women with a previous caesarean delivery, short interpregnancy interval was associated with increased risk of uterine rupture in one study. No studies reported outcomes related to maternal depression, interpregnancy weight gain, maternal anaemia, or maternal mortality. Conclusions In studies from high‐resource settings, short interpregnancy intervals are associated with both increased and decreased risks of adverse maternal outcomes. However, most outcomes were evaluated in single studies, and the strength of evidence supporting associations is low.

Unintended pregnancies are associated with shorter IPI across the reproductive age spectrum.