Assessing the adherence and acceptability to iron and folic acid compared with multiple micronutrient supplements during pregnancy: a cluster-randomized noninferiority trial in Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Cambodian Ministry of Health is exploring transitioning from iron and folic acid (IFA) to multiple micronutrient supplements (MMS) during pregnancy and is seeking rigorous evidence to inform this policy change. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the adherence and acceptability of MMS compared with IFA supplementation during pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted an open-label cluster-randomized noninferiority trial across 48 health centers in Cambodia. A total of 1546 healthy pregnant individuals (18-45 y) were recruited at their first antenatal care (ANC) visit (<14 weeks of gestation) and randomized to 1 of 3 arms at the health center level: 1) IFA for 90 d (IFA-90, n = 515), the current standard of care; 2) MMS for 180 d via 1 180-tablet bottle (MMS-180, n = 516); or 3) MMS for 180 d via 2 90-tablet bottles (MMS-90, n = 515). Our primary outcome was the noninferiority of adherence rates of MMS-180 compared with IFA-90, assessed by tablet counts and compared against a predefined noninferiority margin of -15%. Mixed-effects linear regression models were used to estimate the mean difference (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) in adherence rates. Our secondary outcomes included the mean difference in ANC attendance between the MMS groups and the acceptability of MMS across 6 domains. RESULTS: Overall, 88% of participants completed the trial, with high mean adherence rates across arms (91% for IFA-90, 95% for MMS-180, and 95% for MMS-90). The adjusted mean (95% CI) difference in adherence rates between MMS-180 and IFA-90 groups was 3.9% (1.7, 6.2). The adjusted mean (95% CI) difference in ANC visits for MMS-180 and MMS-90 groups was 0.0 (-0.1, 0.2) visits. The acceptability of MMS was positive (90%-100% "agreement" across 6 domains). CONCLUSIONS: Both IFA and MMS were highly acceptable, yet adherence to MMS was superior to IFA. These findings support the transition from IFA to MMS in Cambodia. This trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT05867836.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".