Experiences, acceptability and barriers to calcium supplementation during pregnancy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calcium supplementation in pregnancy is recommended in contexts with low dietary calcium intake to reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia and its complications. The World Health Organisation suggested high-dose calcium supplementation (1500-2000 mg/day), divided into three doses and taken at different times from daily iron-folic supplements. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation study to assess experiences, acceptability and barriers to high-dose calcium supplementation from the perspectives of pregnant women and antenatal health care providers at two public health facilities in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to characterise acceptability, barriers and overall experiences of using high-dose calcium supplementation. Pregnant women in the cohort were aged 19-41 years, with 32.4% being primiparous. The proportion of pregnant women who liked calcium supplements 'a lot' decreased from 50.2% at the first visit to 31.8% at the last antenatal follow-up visit. Adherence was 71.3% (interquartile range: 50.5%, 89.3%), with only 24.0% of the participants taking 90% or more of the required supplements. Although participants expressed positive attitudes towards using calcium supplements, they also voiced concerns about the large size, side effects, the potential to forget and the burden of taking calcium supplements three times per day. Antenatal health care providers also affirmed the high burden of taking calcium supplements in addition to iron-folic acid supplements. Participants expressed the acceptability of using calcium supplements during pregnancy, but adherence to three doses per day posed challenges to pregnant women. Reducing the number of calcium supplement doses per day may improve adherence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".