| Literature DB >> 33165586 |
Afrah Mohammedsanni Omer1, Demewoz Haile1, Bilal Shikur1, Erlyn Rachelle Macarayan2,3, Seifu Hagos1.
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the need for a strong nutrition training package for practitioners, including antenatal care (ANC) providers. Without such a training package, ANC visits remain a missed opportunity to address nutritional problems among pregnant women. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an in-service nutrition education and counselling package on the providers' counselling skills during ANC visits. A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. All health-care providers working in ANC units across 20 health centres participated in this study. Health centres were allocated to intervention and control arms using a matched-pair randomization technique. An in-service nutrition education and counselling package, including training for ANC providers, supportive supervision and provision of modules, pamphlets and job aids, was provided for health centres assigned to the intervention arm. Observation checklists were used to assess the counselling skills of health-care providers. We used mixed-effect linear regression to evaluate the impact of the intervention. Significantly more health-care providers in the intervention arm informed pregnant women about the need to have one additional meal (Difference in proportion [DP] 49.17% vs -0.84%; DID 50.0%), about minimum required dietary diversity (DP 72.5% vs -2.5%; DID 75.0%) and about gestational weight gain (DP 68.33% vs -8.33%; DID 76.6%). Furthermore, providers improved in identifying key difficulties that pregnant women face (DP 28.34% vs -2.5%; DID 30.8%), and in recommending simple achievable actions on nutrition during pregnancy (DP 20.8% vs -10.9%; DID 31.6%). The intervention did not have statistically significant effects on how providers informed women about early initiation of breastfeeding (DP 6.67% vs 9.17%; DID -2.5%). The comprehensive in-service nutrition education and counselling package improved how ANC providers engaged with pregnant women and delivered nutrition messages during ANC consultations. This trial was registered in the Pan African Clinical Trial (PACTR registry, PACTR20170900 2477373; Date issued 21 September 2017).Entities:
Keywords: Antenatal care; capacity building; health facilities; health professionals; health services; maternal health; nutrition education; pregnancy; primary health care; randomized controlled trial
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33165586 PMCID: PMC7649671 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czaa101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Policy Plan ISSN: 0268-1080 Impact factor: 3.344
Figure 1In-service nutrition education and counselling training package. ANC, antenatal care; ANCPs, antenatal care providers; BINLM, Blended and Integrated Nutrition Learning Module; GALIDRA, Greet, Ask, Listen, Identify, Discuss, Repeat, Appoint
Definitions related to the quantifiable nutritional counselling skills of ANC providers, along with their maximum score points
| Quantifiable nutritional messages (domains) | List of nutritional messages | Max. score points |
|---|---|---|
| Overall nutritional messages | Food groups, IFA supplementation, Consequences of under nutrition, Things to avoid/limit, Solutions to common problems during pregnancy, Iodine (iodized salt) | 102 |
|
Food groups | Intake of recommended items for each of the following food groups: grains, pulses, meat and poultry, fish/sea food, dairy, eggs, fruit and vegetables, fats and oils | 61 |
|
IFA supplementation | Discussed about taking IFA every day, its importance, taking the supplement after a meal, checking adherence to IFA supplementation | 4 |
|
Consequences of under-nutrition | Discussed about maternal complications and foetal complications | 11 |
|
Things to avoid/limit | Discussed avoidance of alcohol, excess caffeine and smoking | 9 |
|
Solutions to common problems during pregnancy | Discussed how to address common problems during pregnancy such as nausea, vomiting, heartburn and constipation | 11 |
|
Iodine (iodized salt) | Informed about use of iodized salt and discussed its importance, dietary sources of iodine, adding salt when serving food instead of while cooking the meal and proper storage of salt | 6 |
Client experiences and client approach of ANC providers during observed ANC visits at both baseline and follow-up by intervention status
| Client experiences and client approach | Intervention | Control | DID impactestimator | 95% CI |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freq. | % | Freq. | % | % | ||||
| Greeted the client | ||||||||
| Baseline | 107 | 89.2 | 110 | 91.7 |
| −4.23–15.90 |
| |
| Follow-up | 119 | 99.2 | 115 | 95.8 | ||||
| Measured weight | ||||||||
| Baseline | 1 | 0.83 | 4 | 3.33 |
| 0.47–17.85 |
| |
| Follow-up | 11 | 9.17 | 3 | 2.50 | ||||
| Monitored gestational weight gain | ||||||||
| Baseline | 2 | 1.67 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 26.43–50.22 |
| |
| Follow-up | 48 | 40.00 | 0 | 0.00 | ||||
| Listened to what the client had to say | ||||||||
| Baseline | 119 | 99.2 | 120 | 100.0 |
| 0.75–2.42 |
| |
| Follow-up | 120 | 100.0 | 120 | 100.0 | ||||
| Showed interest in what the client said | ||||||||
| Baseline | 94 | 78.3 | 107 | 89.2 |
| 18.10–41.52 |
| |
| Follow-up | 120 | 100.0 | 107 | 89.2 | ||||
| Let her talk before responding | ||||||||
| Baseline | 113 | 94.2 | 116 | 96.7 |
| −0.89–12.55 |
| |
| Follow-up | 120 | 100.0 | 116 | 96.7 | ||||
| Gave praise for what the pregnant woman was doing right | ||||||||
| Baseline | 27 | 22.5 | 10 | 8.3 |
| 10.60–49.39 |
| |
| Follow-up | 61 | 50.8 | 8 | 6.7 | ||||
| Avoided judging words while speaking | ||||||||
| Baseline | 67 | 55.8 | 71 | 59.2 |
| 15.58–56.09 |
| |
| Follow-up | 117 | 97.5 | 78 | 65.0 | ||||
| Identified key difficulties the pregnant woman was having | ||||||||
| Baseline | 31 | 25.83 | 30 | 25.00 |
| 11.54–50.12 |
| |
| Follow-up | 65 | 54.17 | 27 | 22.50 | ||||
| Discussed possible options to practice recommendations | ||||||||
| Baseline | 8 | 6.7 | 2 | 1.7 |
| 19.99–45.00 |
| |
| Follow-up | 50 | 41.7 | 5 | 4.2 | ||||
| Recommended achievable actions | ||||||||
| Baseline | 71 | 59.2 | 59 | 49.2 |
| 11.79–51.53 |
| |
| Follow-up | 96 | 80.0 | 46 | 38.3 | ||||
| Helped her agree and repeat achievable actions | ||||||||
| Baseline | 1 | 0.83 | 1 | 0.8 |
| 8.20–39.17 |
| |
| Follow-up | 24 | 20.0 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
Baseline N = 240;
Follow-up N = 240;
Baseline intervention Freq. = 120;
Follow-up intervention Freq. = 120;
Baseline follow-up Freq. = 120;
Follow-up control Freq. = 120;
DID impact estimator using mixed-effect linear regression with health centres and ANC providers as random effects; adjusted for health-care provider’s institute of graduation, field of study and educational status;
CI, confidence interval. All P-values in this table were adjusted using Finner's adjusted test after the mixed-effect regression.
Figure 2Flow diagram of the cluster health centres' and individual participant's enrolment, allocation and analysis. ANC, antenatal care
Baseline sociodemographic characteristics of ANC providers by intervention status
| Characteristics of ANC providers |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age (in completed years) | ||||
| 21–30 | 35 | 87.5 | 31 | 77.5 |
| 31–40 | 4 | 10.0 | 9 | 22.5 |
| >40 | 1 | 2.5 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 7 | 17.5 | 9 | 22.5 |
| Female | 33 | 82.5 | 31 | 77.5 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | 28 | 70.0 | 25 | 62.5 |
| Married/living together | 11 | 27.5 | 14 | 35.0 |
| Divorced/separated | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 2.5 |
| Widowed | 1 | 2.5 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Field of study | ||||
| Midwife | 29 | 72.5 | 24 | 60.0 |
| Clinical nurse | 4 | 10.0 | 3 | 7.5 |
| BSc nurse | 2 | 5.0 | 9 | 22.5 |
| Health officer | 5 | 12.5 | 4 | 10.0 |
| Educational status | ||||
| Diploma | 27 | 67.5 | 17 | 42.5 |
| Degree | 13 | 32.5 | 23 | 57.5 |
| Institute of graduation | ||||
| Government | 35 | 87.5 | 25 | 62.5 |
| Private | 5 | 12.50 | 15 | 37.5 |
| Years of experience | ||||
| ≤2 | 16 | 40.0 | 12 | 30.0 |
| 3–4 | 13 | 32.5 | 12 | 30.0 |
| ≥5 | 11 | 27.5 | 16 | 40.0 |
| Previous nutritional training | ||||
| Yes | 2 | 5.00 | 3 | 7.50 |
| No | 38 | 95.0 | 37 | 92.5 |
| Self-reported confidence | ||||
| Not confident | 3 | 7.5 | 2 | 5.0 |
| Moderately confident | 25 | 62.5 | 21 | 52.5 |
| Confident | 12 | 30.0 | 17 | 42.5 |
| Think they will give better counselling with additional training | ||||
| Yes | 35 | 87.5 | 33 | 82.5 |
| No | 5 | 12.5 | 7 | 17.5 |
Nutrition messages delivered by ANC providers to pregnant women during observed ANC consultations at both baseline and follow-up by intervention status
| Nutrition messages | Intervention | Control | DID impactestimator | 95% CI |
| ICC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freq. | % | Freq. | % | % | |||||
| Increased risk during pregnancy | |||||||||
| Baseline | 27 | 22.50 | 28 | 23.33 | 60.8 | 42.59–79.07 | 0.001 | 0.289 | |
| Follow-up | 104 | 86.67 | 32 | 26.67 | |||||
| The need for extra energy | |||||||||
| Baseline | 44 | 36.67 | 47 | 39.17 | 58.3 | 42.54–74.12 | 0.001 | 0.142 | |
| Follow-up | 118 | 98.33 | 51 | 42.50 | |||||
| One additional meal | |||||||||
| Baseline | 61 | 50.83 | 68 | 56.67 | 50.0 | 27.78–72.21 | 0.001 | 0.57 | |
| Follow-up | 120 | 100.00 | 67 | 55.83 | |||||
| Minimum dietary diversity | |||||||||
| Baseline | 5 | 4.17 | 6 | 5.00 | 75.0 | 59.62–90.37 | 0.001 | 0.198 | |
| Follow-up | 92 | 76.67 | 3 | 2.50 | |||||
| Daytime rest | |||||||||
| Baseline | 43 | 35.83 | 40 | 33.33 | 51. 6 | 30.16–73.16 | 0.001 | 0.093 | |
| Follow-up | 120 | 100.00 | 55 | 45.83 | |||||
| Gestational weight gain | |||||||||
| Baseline | 35 | 29.17 | 39 | 32.50 | 76. 6 | 59.94–93.39 | 0.001 | 0.255 | |
| Follow-up | 117 | 97.50 | 29 | 24.17 | |||||
| Early initiation of breastfeeding | |||||||||
| Baseline | 28 | 23.33 | 18 | 15.00 | -2.5 | -2.41–1.91 | 0.821 | 0.083 | |
| Follow-up | 36 | 30.00 | 29 | 24.17 | |||||
Baseline N = 240;
Follow-up N = 240;
Baseline intervention Freq. = 120; Follow-up intervention Freq. = 120;
Baseline follow-up Freq. = 120; Follow-up control Freq. = 120;
DID impact estimator using mixed-effect linear regression with health centres and ANC providers as random effects; adjusted for health-care provider’s institute of graduation, field of study and educational status;
CI, Confidence interval;
ICC, intra-cluster correlation coefficient. All P-values in this table were adjusted using Finner's adjusted test after the mixed-effect regression.
Nutrition messages delivered by ANC providers to pregnant women during observed ANC consultations at both baseline and follow-up by intervention status
| Nutrition messages | Intervention | Control | DID impact estimator | 95% CI |
| ICC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean score | |||||
| Overall nutritional messages | |||||||||
|
| Baseline | 6.1 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 4.6 | 29.5 | 24.89–34.16 | 0.001 | 0.513 |
| Follow-up | 37.0 | 11.1 | 7.4 | 4.5 | |||||
| IFA supplementation | |||||||||
|
| Baseline | 1.4 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 1.46–2.03 | 0.001 | 0.423 |
| Follow-up | 3.3 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 0.7 | |||||
| Food groups | |||||||||
|
| Baseline | 2.5 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 15.9 | 13.33–18.51 | 0.001 | 0.511 |
| Follow-up | 19.1 | 6.6 | 2.8 | 2.4 | |||||
| Consequences of under-nutrition | |||||||||
|
| Baseline | 0.5 | 0.9 | .35 | 0.8 | 4 | 3.27–4.87 | 0.001 | 0.368 |
| Follow-up | 4.7 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 | |||||
| Things to limit/avoid | |||||||||
|
| Baseline | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 1.62–4.2 | 0.001 | 0.33 |
| Follow-up | 3.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | |||||
| Solutions to common problems during pregnancy | |||||||||
|
| Baseline | 0.5 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 2.3 | 1.37–3.25 | 0.001 | 0.102 |
| Follow-up | 2.9 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 1.2 | |||||
| Iodized salt | |||||||||
|
| Baseline | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 2.5 | 2.1–2.9 | 0.001 | 0.549 |
| Follow-up | 3.2 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 | |||||
Baseline N = 240;
Follow-up N = 240;
Baseline intervention Freq. = 120;
Follow-up intervention Freq. =120;
Baseline follow-up Freq. = 120;
Follow-up control Freq. = 120;
Average DID impact estimator using mixed-effect linear regression with health centres and ANC providers as random effects; adjusted for health-care provider’s institute of graduation, field of study and educational status;
CI, confidence interval;
SD, standard deviation;
ICC, intra-cluster correlation coefficient. All P-values in this table were adjusted using Finner's adjusted test after the mixed-effect regression.