Caregiver perceptions of nutrition interventions in infants and children under 24 months of age: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Efficacy studies show early nutrition interventions improving infant nutrition status, but understanding caregiver acceptability is required for implementation of such interventions. This systematic review examines caregivers’ perceptions of nutrition interventions in young children. Design: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO from date of online journal inception through December 2020. Interventions included oral (powder/liquid/tablet) and/or intravenous supplementation, food fortification and nutrition counselling. Inclusion criteria included primary research, data presented on caregiver perception and studies published in English. Quality assessment was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Studies underwent narrative synthesis using inductive thematic analysis. Setting: No restriction. Participants: Caregivers of children under 24 months of age. Results: Of 11 798 records identified, thirty-seven publications were included. Interventions included oral supplementation, food fortification and nutrition counselling. Caregivers included mothers (83 %), fathers, grandparents and aunts. Perceptions were gathered through individual interviews, focus group discussions, questionnaires, surveys and ratings. Totally, 89 % of studies noted high acceptability ( n 33 most notably increased appetite ( n 17). In total, 57 % of studies ( n 21) cited low acceptability, commonly from side effects ( n 13) such as gastrointestinal issues, appetite loss and stained teeth. Conclusions: Positive perceptions and enthusiasm for interventions were frequently reported. Key to implementation was the increased appetite noted by caregivers. A substantial proportion of studies reported negative perceptions, mainly due to side effects. In future interventions, mitigation and education around common side effects are crucial for acceptability. Understanding both positive and negative caregiver perceptions is important for informing future nutrition interventions and strengthening sustainability and implementation.
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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".