Restricting diet for perceived health benefit: A mixed‐methods exploration of peripartum food taboos in rural Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food taboos encompass food restrictions practiced by a group that go beyond individual preferences. During pregnancy and lactation, food taboos may contribute to inadequate nutrition and poor maternal and infant health. Restriction of specific fish, meat, fruits and vegetables is common among peripartum women in many Southeast Asian countries, but data from Cambodia are lacking. In this mixed-methods study, 335 Cambodian mothers were asked open-ended questions regarding dietary behaviours during pregnancy and up to 24 weeks postpartum. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to characterize food taboos and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of this practice. Participants were 18-44 years of age, all of Khmer ethnicity and 31% were primiparous. Sixty-six per cent of women followed food taboos during the first 2 weeks postpartum, whereas ~20% of women restricted foods during other peripartum periods. Pregnancy taboos were often beneficial, including avoidance of sugar-sweetened beverages, coffee and alcohol. Conversely, postpartum avoidances typically included nutrient-dense foods such as fish, raw vegetables and chicken. Food taboos were generally followed to support maternal and child health. No significant predictors of food taboos during pregnancy were identified. Postpartum, each additional live birth a woman had reduced her odds of following food taboos by 24% (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.61-0.95]). Specific food taboo practices and rationales varied greatly between women, suggesting that food taboos are shaped less by a strict belief system within the Khmer culture and more by individual or household understandings of food and health during pregnancy and postpartum.
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) | 0.000 | 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".