Use of folic acid supplements, particularly by low-income and young women: a series of systematic reviews to inform public health policy in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a basis for making recommendations on the potential to improve use of folic acid supplements in the UK, particularly among low-income and young women. DESIGN: Systematic reviews of relevant research from 1989 to May 2006 in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: Twenty-six systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were identified from the wider public health literature, and eighteen studies on the effectiveness of preconception interventions were included. Ninety studies were identified which were directly relevant to folic acid supplement intake. There were factors that are particularly associated with lower rates of use of folic acid supplements. One of the most important of these is the link with unintended pregnancy, followed by age, socio-economic and ethnic group. Integrated campaigns can increase the use of folic acid supplements to some extent. Research trials indicated that: (i) printed resources and the mass media used in isolation are not effective in the longer term; and (ii) health-care-based initiatives can be effective and are more likely to be successful if they include making supplements easily available. CONCLUSIONS: Campaigns and interventions have the potential to exacerbate socio-economic inequalities in folic acid use. One way of addressing this is to include elements that specifically target vulnerable women. To achieve and maintain an effect, they need to be based on good health promotion practice and to be sustained over a long period. However, even high-quality campaigns that increase use result in under half of women in the target group taking supplements.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".