MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WHO Guidelines on Calcium Supplementation for Prevention of Preeclampsia: Adoption, Feasibility and Acceptability in Rural Kenya

2016· article· en· W4389007910 on OpenAlexaff
Moshood Olanrewaju Omotayo, Rebecca J. Stoltzfus, Stephanie Martin, Jacqueline K. Kung’u, Katherine L. Dickin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPillKenyaMedicineRegimenFamily medicinePreeclampsiaPregnancyObstetricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To design optimal programs to deliver WHO guidelines on calcium (Ca) supplementation for prevention of preeclampsia, we must understand factors that influence its implementation. Yet, this has not been reported in any setting. With a mixed methods approach, we studied factors affecting feasibility of the guidelines among 38 pregnant women in 6 Kenyan community groups. We randomly assigned the participants to 3 different regimens. The regimens, based on trade‐off between bioavailability and feasibility, were a) Complex: 4 pill‐taking events, 1.5g elemental Ca (3×500mg) plus IFA taken separately, as per WHO guidelines. b) Simpler: 3 pill‐taking events, 1.5g elemental Ca (3×500mg) and IFA taken with last Ca dose and c) Low: 2 pill‐taking events, 1.0g elemental Ca (2×500mg) and IFA taken with last Ca dose. Combining Ca and IFA, given the lack of evidence of significant clinical effects of interaction, was considered reasonable to reduce regimen complexity and potentially improve feasibility. In addition, participants selected either ‘hard’ or ‘chewable’ Ca products with different organoleptic properties. They were provided with supplements, counseled on the guidelines, and interviewed 4 times over 6 weeks to assess barriers and motivators over time. We tracked supplement consumption with pill bottle electronic monitors. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed based on grounded theory. Among the 38 participants, 18% were < 20 y of age, 18% were primigravid, and 61% had not attended ante‐natal care visits in this pregnancy. Six women were delivered and 4 women relocated before final interview. At visit 1, all participants were willing to try the recommendations. At subsequent visits, 3 women declined to continue, because of advice from relatives and perceived risk of side effects. Mean supplemental calcium consumption was 724mg/day. With the ‘chewable’ product type, average Ca consumed daily was higher compared to the ‘hard’ product type. Participants preferred the ‘sugary taste’ of the chewable type and reported that ability to consume it without water was desirable. Difficulties with the complex regimen included afternoon doses when women were likely to forget or be away from home, and having to wait a couple hours after supper for last dose. The low regimen was feasible because it eliminated both of these. The simple regimen eliminated the wait after supper, increasing feasibility, and retained the afternoon dose. Women assigned to this regimen consumed more supplemental calcium (887mg/day), compared to those assigned to the complex regimen (688mg/day) and the low regimen (681 mg/day). Daily tracking of consumption with a calendar, keeping supplements in conspicuous locations and requesting support from relatives were identified as strategies for improving feasibility. We conclude that Kenyan women are likely to adopt Ca supplementation in pregnancy, with appropriate programmatic adaptations. Careful attention is needed to adapt the WHO guideline in terms of product attributes, regimen complexity and strategies for helping women remember to consume their supplements. Support or Funding Information Funding for this research was provided by The Micronutrient Initiative

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207