Factors affecting the acceptability and consumption of Corn Soya Blend Plus as a prenatal dietary supplement among pregnant women in rural Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Undernutrition is prevalent among pregnant women in Cambodia. The provision of fortified dietary supplements is one strategy to help pregnant women meet their nutritional needs. Corn Soya Blend Plus (CSBP) is a widely used prenatal dietary supplement in areas with high rates of undernutrition and food insecurity. However, little is known about its acceptability during pregnancy. The present study aimed to identify factors that affected the acceptability and consumption of CSBP supplements among pregnant women. DESIGN: Women completed a structured interview designed to provide information on facilitators of and barriers to utilization. In addition, six focus groups were conducted with a subset of women (n 70) to further explore attitudes, perceptions and experiences related to CSBP use. SETTING: Two districts in Kampong Chhnang Province, Cambodia. SUBJECTS: Pregnant women (n 288) participating in a cluster-randomized trial of CSBP. RESULTS: The acceptability of CSBP was influenced by sensory attributes, family support, peer influences, and attitudes related to diet, nutritional status and weight gain in pregnancy. Attaining adequate nutrition was considered less important than other concerns during pregnancy, particularly anxiety related to the costs of delivery and postpartum care. Acceptance was lower among new mothers due to fears of weight gain. Health benefits were common reasons for continued use and minor side-effects, such as nausea, were not major barriers to consumption. CONCLUSIONS: CSBP was generally well accepted in this population. However, organoleptic factors and perceptions regarding nutrition and weight gain in pregnancy, particularly for first-time mothers, were barriers to increasing acceptance among Cambodian women.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".