With adaptation, the WHO guidelines on calcium supplementation for prevention of pre‐eclampsia are adopted by pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends calcium supplementation for prevention of pre-eclampsia, but factors affecting adoption and acceptability of the recommendations among pregnant women have not been examined. We explored adoption of the WHO guidelines in Kenya, using the trials of improved practices. We recruited 38 pregnant women and assigned participants to three regimens representing potential trade-offs among daily dose, bioavailability, and acceptability. Participants were provided with supplements, requested to select preferred product type, counselled on how to take them, and interviewed 4 times over 6 weeks to assess their experiences. We tracked bottle opening with electronic monitors, as proxy for supplement consumption. We analysed interview transcripts thematically. All participants were willing to try the supplements. Average daily consumption ranged from 77 to 1,577 mg/d. Most participants (74%) chose the chewable product. Participants preferred its "sweet taste" and liked the ability to consume it without water. Women in the 2-dose regimen were least likely to switch; however, women assigned to the 3-dose regimen, or who switched to the 3-dose regimen, consumed the most calcium per day. Difficulties with the 4-dose regimen included afternoon doses when women were likely to forget and having to wait hours after supper for last dose. Use of an illustrated calendar, keeping supplements in conspicuous locations and requesting support from relatives were strategies that supported adherence. Pregnant women are likely to adopt Ca supplementation, with appropriate programmatic adaptations. Careful attention to product attributes, regimen complexity, and strategies for reassuring and reminding women are needed to adapt the WHO guidelines.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".