Caregiver perceptions, practices, and preferences relating to multiple micronutrient powders for children 6‐23 mo of age in the northern highlands of Peru (804.28)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : To ensure multiple micronutrient powders (MNP) for children have their intended effect, it is important to understand caregivers’ experiences. Objective : We aimed to assess perceptions, practices, and preferences relating to the use of MNP among caregivers of children enrolled in a study to compare different MNP dosing schemes in Cajamarca, Peru. Methods : Infants age 6‐11 mo (n=400) were randomly assigned to 6 mo daily, 6 mo intermittent (every other day), 12 mo daily, or 12 mo intermittent MNP supplementation. MNP were provided monthly and field staff conducted home visits twice monthly. Unused MNP sachets were collected throughout and at endline (12 mo) all caregivers were asked about their experiences using MNP. Results : Most (94%) reported being very satisfied with MNP. One quarter (27%) reported difficulties remembering to give the MNP scheme as recommended. The most frequently reported strategies for remembering were keeping the MNP in the kitchen or bedroom. Most (98%) reported that giving their child MNP eventually became part of their regular routine; about half (59%) said that this took a week or less. Adherence was high; 85% of the MNP sachets were used and almost everyone (98%) reported giving all or most of the MNP to their child. Most (95%) reported noticing benefits after giving MNP to their child; increased appetite and increased hemoglobin (as informed by the study nurse) were most common. Caregivers assigned to the daily scheme were over 3 times more likely to say they would select their own scheme, compared to those in the intermittent group (OR: 3.6, 95%CI: 2.3‐5.7). Conclusions : MNP were acceptable and used with high adherence over the long term in this population; daily supplementation was preferred over intermittent. Grant Funding Source : Supported by the Micronutrient Initiative
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".