Adherence to the Australian dietary guidelines during pregnancy: evidence from a national study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess dietary intake of pregnant women against the Australian Dietary Guidelines with respect to the Five Food Group recommendations and determine predictors of adherence to the recommendations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. SETTING: Pregnant women living in Australia. A national sample was recruited using an online panel provider and a South Australian sample was recruited through the antenatal clinic of a large public maternity hospital. SUBJECTS: A total of 857 pregnant women. RESULTS: Fifty-six per cent, 29% and less than 10% of women met the recommendations for the fruit, dairy and other core food groups, respectively. None of the women met the recommendations for all Five Food Groups. Women who were born overseas and who were less physically active pre-pregnancy were less likely to adhere to the fruit and dairy recommendations. Women who smoked during pregnancy, were overweight pre-pregnancy and had lower household incomes were also less likely to meet the fruit recommendations; and women living in metropolitan areas were less likely to meet the vegetable recommendations. Sixty-one per cent believed their diet during this pregnancy was healthy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pregnant women in Australia perceive their diets to be healthy yet they do not consume the recommended daily servings from the Five Food Groups. Intervention strategies are warranted, particularly those that increase women's ability to evaluate their diet and also encourage positive dietary changes. These strategies may increase adoption of dietary guidelines and optimise pregnancy and other long-term health outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".