Barriers to nutritional pregnancy preparation and support needs in women and men: Qualitative study based on the Theoretical Domains Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Eating behaviours prior to conception may impact the health of the offspring at birth and throughout life. Women and men of childbearing age often follow a nutritionally poor preconception diet. Nutritional support before pregnancy has the potential to improve the health of future offspring. This study examined barriers to nutritional preparation for pregnancy and perceived support needs of women and men of childbearing age. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible individuals were (1) New Brunswick residents (all genders), (2) over 19 years old, and (3) intended to have offspring in the future. METHODS: Interviews were conducted via online instant messenger and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Interviews of participants (n = 19, age = 19-23 years, 14 women, 5 men) gave rise to five key theoretical domains: lack of knowledge; lack of beliefs about capabilities; suboptimal environmental context and resources; unfavourable social influences; and restrictive social roles. Suggestions to address pregnancy preparation support needs included healthcare professional consultations; accessible and credible references; increasing access to healthy food; proactive engagement; and gender-specific support. CONCLUSION: Women and men called for various types of preconception support to address identified barriers, ranging from healthcare professional advice and credible informational resources to broader interventions such as making healthy food more affordable and normalizing discussion of preconception health throughout the life course.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".