Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28890896›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2017

Informing Nutrition Care in the Antenatal Period: Pregnant Women's Experiences and Need for Support.

Khlood Bookari, Heather Yeatman, Moira Williamson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Khlood BookariSchool of Health and Society, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1644-8761
Heather YeatmanSchool of Health and Society, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Moira WilliamsonSchool of Nursing, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to provide insights into Australian women's experiences in gaining nutrition information during pregnancy. Individual semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 17 pregnant (across all trimesters) and 9 postpartum women in five Australian states. Data were transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Women valued nutrition information, actively sought it, and passively received it mainly from three sources: healthcare providers (HCPs), media, and their social networks. Women reported HCPs as highest for reliability but they had limited time and indifferent approaches. Various media were easily and most frequently accessed but were less reliable. Social networks were considered to be the least reliable and least accessed. Women reported becoming overwhelmed and confused. This in turn influenced their decisions (pragmatic/rational) and their eating behaviours ("overdo it," "loosen it," "ignore it," and "positive response"). Individual and environmental barriers impacted their application of knowledge to dietary practice. Women wanted more constructive and interactive engagement with their HCPs. This study identified the need to establish and maintain mutually respectful environments where women feel able to raise issues with their HCPs throughout their pregnancies and where they are confident that the information they receive will be accurate and meet their needs.

Indexed as

Nutritional StatusPregnant PeopleAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansMaternal Health ServicesPregnancyPrenatal CarePrenatal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28890896
PMCPMC5584352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.