MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414312030 · doi:10.3390/nu17182994

Acceptability of Antenatal Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) Compared to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) Supplementation in Pregnant Individuals: A Narrative Review

2025· review· en· W4414312030 on OpenAlexaff
Mihaela C Kissell, Filomena Gomes, Kidist Woldesenbet, Masresha Tessema, Hiwot Kelemu, Ramadhani Noor, Luz R. Escubil, Aishwarya Panicker, Ashutosh Mishra, Mai‐Anh Hoang, Hou Kroeun, Cassandra Sauer, Meng Sokchea, Crystal D Karakochuk, Masako Horino, Keith P. West, Akihiro Seita, Djeinam Touré, Umu H. Jalloh, Francis Moses, Aminata Shamit Koroma, Bakary Diarra, Ousmane Camara, Ouassa Sanogo, Kristine Garn, Martin N. Mwangi

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBill and Melinda Gates FoundationEleanor Crook Foundation
KeywordsMicronutrientSocioeconomic statusContext (archaeology)Folic acidPregnancyNarrative reviewFolic acid supplementationScopus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Antenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) improves birth outcomes more effectively than iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation alone. However, the acceptability of MMS among pregnant individuals, a critical factor for adherence and program success, remains poorly defined and inconsistently assessed. This narrative review proposes a comprehensive definition of “acceptability” in the context of nutritional supplementation and evaluates the evidence on the acceptability of MMS compared to IFA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search across Embase, Medline, and Scopus to identify studies (including grey literature) reporting on acceptability-related outcomes for MMS versus IFA among pregnant individuals. Studies exploring dimensions such as organoleptic properties, ease of consumption, side effects, cultural appropriateness, and socioeconomic factors were included. Results: Out of 1056 screened studies, five informed a novel multi-dimensional definition of acceptability. Six studies assessed acceptability-related characteristics. MMS was generally accepted across most organoleptic domains. Most studies reported fewer or comparable adverse side effects for MMS as compared to IFA. Studies consistently reported more perceived benefits for MMS than IFA. Facilitating factors included trust in health professionals, free provision, and family support. Barriers included poor taste or smell, fear of side effects, misconceptions, cost, and lack of family support. Conclusions: Antenatal MMS is widely acceptable in LMICs. Addressing socio-cultural, sensory, and socioeconomic factors is essential to increase uptake and adherence. This review provides a clear, standardized definition of acceptability to guide future research and inform effective program design.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207