Multiple micronutrient supplements in pregnancy: Implementation considerations for integration as part of quality services in routine antenatal care. Objectives, results, and conclusions of the meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion, screening, diagnosis, and disease prevention are essential services of quality routine antenatal care for pregnant adult and adolescent women. Supplementation programmes in pregnancy, generally implemented in the context of antenatal care services, have had less than optimal results in many countries, generally attributed to limited access, low coverage, and reduced adherence to the recommended regimens and counselling. The World Health Organization Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, in collaboration with the United Nations Children's Fund and Nutrition International, convened the technical consultation "Multiple micronutrient supplements in pregnancy: Implementation considerations for successful incorporation into existing programmes." The objectives of the technical consultation were to (a) examine implementation experiences of micronutrient supplementation interventions in pregnant women, lessons learnt, and best practices; (b) discuss programmatic and technical considerations of interventions on multiple micronutrient supplementation in pregnant women in low-, middle-, and high-income countries; and (c) identify implementation considerations that can be useful to scaling up efforts by national policymaker and their advisors considering multiple micronutrient supplementation in pregnant women as part of existing antenatal care programmes as well as other delivery platforms. The consultation was based on presentations of background papers, case studies, and plenary discussions. Country representatives were asked to discuss the context of micronutrient supplementation for their countries and share implementation challenges they faced. This paper provides the background and rationale of the technical consultation, synopsises the presentations, and provides a summary of the main considerations and conclusions reached during plenary discussions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".