Maternal nutritional supplement delivery in developing countries: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maternal under-nutrition in low-income countries has been inextricably linked to negative child outcomes. Developing countries lack policies for monitoring and evaluating maternal nutritional programs, which has led to a gap in data collection regarding the effectiveness of prenatal supplement delivery methods. The objective of this scoping review is to examine and determine the delivery methods of maternal nutritional supplements in developing countries. METHODS: Scoping review of maternal supplement programs delivery methods in low-income countries including Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and Nepal are examined. A systematic search was performed in six databases; CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health), MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and FSTA (Food Science and Technology Abstracts). RESULTS: = 12). The 12 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 8 of these studies were excluded for not meeting the scoping review criteria. Data was extracted and charted from the four remaining studies. The findings were collated and summarized.Three modes of delivery were identified: 1. Volunteer maternal nutrition educator delivered supplements to the pregnant woman's home; 2. The pregnant woman received a maternal supplements from school, health/local center, or village market; and 3. The pregnant woman received a ration card for subsidized food. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers in delivering maternal supplements included lack of trained professional volunteers, limited support and guidance provided to volunteers, and a high cost of equipment, supplies, and buildings. Pregnant women in developing countries faced many obstacles in accessing maternal supplement programs including poverty, rural isolation, limited transportation, low social status, traditional, cultural, and religious practices. Strategies required to improve program delivery involved an earlier invitation to prenatal supplements, increase in partnerships, a focus on adolescent girls' health, paid maternal leave, increase in training and incentives for volunteers, and self-help groups focused on prenatal education and counseling services.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".