| Literature DB >> 34551744 |
Lillian Ziyenda Katenga-Kaunda1,2, Penjani Rhoda Kamudoni3, Gerd Holmboe-Ottesen3, Heidi E Fjeld3, Ibrahimu Mdala3, Zumin Shi4, Per Ole Iversen5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many sub-Saharan African countries, such as Malawi, antenatal care (ANC) services do not deliver sufficient nutrition awareness to improve adequate dietary intake in pregnancy. We therefore compared the effects of supplementary nutrition education and dietary counselling with routine ANC service on nutrition knowledge and dietary intakes among Malawian pregnant women.Entities:
Keywords: Diet; Education; Foods; Pregnancy
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34551744 PMCID: PMC8456581 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-04117-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 1Map of Malawi showing Mangochi District (red), Lake Malawi blue), and Location of T.A. Nankumba (right side inset) with the study villages (intervention-green and control-white circles). Modified from source [21]
Fig. 2Flow chart showing the enrolment of participants into the two study groups
Baseline characteristics of the study groups
| Characteristic | Control (n = 103) | Intervention (n = 92) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median (IQR) maternal age (years) | 23 (18–28) | 24 (19–30) | 0.11 |
| Median (IQR) number of previous births | 1 (0–3) | 2 (0–3) | 0.12 |
| Median (IQR) household size | 5 (3–6) | 5 (3–6) | 0.06 |
| Median (IQR) months of houshold food shortage last year | 2 (1–5) | 3 (1–6) | 0.05 |
| Geographic location (n, %) | |||
| Lakeshore | 60 (58.3) | 43 (46.7) | 0.11 |
| Upland | 43 (41.7) | 49 (53.3) | |
| Socio-economic status (n, %) | |||
| Very poor | 29 (28.2) | 31 (33.7) | 0.56 |
| Poor | 43 (41.7) | 39 (42.4) | |
| Well-off | 31 (30.1) | 22 (23.9) | |
| Maternal income (n, %) | |||
| No income | 83 (80.6) | 75 (81.5) | 0.87 |
| Has income | 20 (19.4) | 17 (18.5) | |
| Marital status (n, %) | |||
| Single | 12 (16.5) | 9 (4.3) | 0.67 |
| Married | 91 (83.5) | 83 (95.7) | |
| Education (n, %) | |||
| Illiterate/primary | 79 (78.6) | 79 (83.7) | 0.10 |
| Secondary/above | 24 (21.4) | 13 (16.3) | |
| Household head gender (n, %) | |||
| Female | 9 (11.7) | 7 (4.3) | 0.77 |
| Male | 94 (88.3) | 85 (95.7) | |
IQR Interquartile range
Nutrition knowledge, perceptions and dietary intake at baseline and at study end-point
| Staple | 23.3 | 25.0 | 0.78 | 38.3 | 61.7 | < 0.01 |
| Animal Food | 23.3 | 32.6 | 0.14 | 37.1 | 62.9 | < 0.01 |
| Vegetables | 29.1 | 41.3 | 0.08 | 40.5 | 59.5 | < 0.01 |
| Legumes | 21.4 | 26.7 | 0.43 | 38.1 | 61.9 | < 0.01 |
| Fruits | 21.4 | 27.5 | 0.32 | 38.6 | 61.4 | < 0.01 |
| Fats | 18.4 | 23.9 | 0.35 | 43.0 | 66.0 | < 0.01 |
| Mean (IQR) nutrition knowledge scores | 0 (0–2) | 0 (0–4) | 0.52 | 3 (0–5) | 6 (3–6) | < 0.01 |
| Low scores (%) | 82.5 | 73.6 | 0.28 | 62.1 | 26.4 | < 0.01 |
| Moderate scores (%) | 5.8 | 11.0 | 14.6 | 15.4 | ||
| High score (%) | 11.7 | 15.4 | 23.6 | 58.4 | ||
| Know that pregnant women have high risk for malnutrition | 80.6 | 80.4 | 0.87 | 81.6 | 91.3 | 0.05 |
| Perceptions of not being at-risk for malnutrition | 26.2 | 28.3 | 0.75 | 23.2 | 9.8 | < 0.01 |
| SFG | 4 (3–5) | 4 (3–6) | 0.35 | 5 (4–5) | 5 (4–6) | < 0.01 |
| MDD-W score | 5 (4–5) | 5 (4–7) | 0.19 | 6 (5–6) | 7 (5–8) | < 0.01 |
| Consumption of diversified foods frequently | 26.2 | 25.0 | .87 | 43.7 | 62.6 | < 0.01 |
| Missing main meals less frequently | 29.1 | 28.3 | 0.89 | 55.3 | 78.3 | < 0.01 |
| Taking healthy drinks and snacks frequently | 15.8 | 19.1 | 0.55 | 24.5 | 42.9 | < 0.01 |
| Eating whole grain frequently | 21.4 | 22.8 | 0.81 | 65.7 | 90.1 | < 0.01 |
aThe p-values relate to the differences between the two study groups The n varies due to missing/incomplete data
IQR Interquartile range, SFG Six Food Group, MDD-W Minimum dietary diversity for woman
Fig. 3Association between nutrition knowledge and dietary diversity score. The values represent marginal means with 95% confidence intervals, and adjusted for age, education and household size
Fig. 4Mean changes in nutrition knowledge and diet diversity score within and between the two study groups. Values are mean (95% confidence intervals) changes in nutrition knowledge and DDS. Estimates to the right of the vertical line (dotted) in the forest plot represents increases in scores whereas estimates to the left represent decreases of the scores. The 95% confidence intervals cutting through the vertical line represents results that are not statistically significant. CI, confidence interval; DDS, diet diversity score