Ethiopian women's perspectives on antenatal care and iron‐folic acid supplementation: Insights for translating global antenatal calcium guidelines into practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After decades of global response to iron-deficiency anemia, lessons learned from antenatal iron-folic acid (IFA) supplementation can inform new micronutrient supplementation efforts. The World Health Organization recommends calcium supplementation for the prevention of preeclampsia; however, little is documented on how to design programs to integrate calcium into the standard of care. Twenty interviews with pregnant women and 22 interviews with health providers and volunteers in two districts in Ethiopia were conducted to examine how barriers and facilitators to antenatal care, IFA supplementation, and initial reactions to calcium supplements and regimen might influence adherence and inform future programs. Women viewed supplementation positively but cited lack of information on benefits and risks, forgetfulness, and inconsistent IFA supply as challenges. Though knowledge and awareness of anemia and IFA supplements were widespread, preeclampsia was mostly unknown. Some symptoms of preeclampsia were viewed as normal in pregnancy, making it difficult to convey risk to motivate supplement use. Some women viewed co-consumption of IFA and calcium as potentially harmful and were confused regarding the simultaneous risks of anemia and hypertension, understood as "low" and "high" blood levels in pregnancy. However, most said they would take both IFA and calcium supplements if provided with supplements and counseling on purpose and benefits. Strategies such as social support from families, stronger community-based counseling, and increased health care provider and community awareness of preeclampsia are critical for women to understand the benefits of supplementation and resolve confusion caused by current descriptors used for anemia and hypertension.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".