Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29801477›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

A cross-sectional survey investigating women's information sources, behaviour, expectations, knowledge and level of satisfaction on advice received about diet and supplements before and during pregnancy.

Gillian Funnell, Kevin Naicker, John Chang, Natasha Hill, Reem Kayyali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Realist Scoping Review of Community Nutrition Interventions in the UK: Implications for the 'Nutrition Skills for Life' Programme.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Gillian FunnellFaculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, London, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom.
Kevin NaickerFaculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, London, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom.
John ChangCroydon University Hospital, 530 London Road, Croydon, CR7 7YE, United Kingdom.
Natasha HillFaculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, London, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom.
Reem KayyaliFaculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, London, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom. r.kayyali@kingston.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reported long-term effects of poor maternal nutrition and uptake of recommended supplements before and during pregnancy was the impetus behind this study. Our objectives were to investigate and understand women's expectations, knowledge, behaviour and information sources used regarding the use of nutrition and vitamin supplements before and during pregnancy.

methodsA cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire was undertaken. A purposive sampling technique was used. Women attending the antenatal clinic at Croydon University Hospital during 2015 were invited to take part in the study. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics, paired sample T-tests and Chi-squared tests, with the level of significance set at 5% (p < 0.05).

resultsA total of 133 pregnant women completed the survey. Analysis of the results showed that women are currently using electronic resources (33%, n = 42) rather than healthcare professionals (19%, n = 25) as an information source before pregnancy. Women who sourced information through the internet were significantly more likely to take folic acid (p = 0.006) and vitamin D (p = 0.004) before pregnancy. Women preferred to receive information from the antenatal clinic (62%, n = 83), internet (46%, n = 61) and from mobile applications (27%, n = 36). Although women believed they had sufficient knowledge (60%, n = 80) and had received adequate advice (53%, n = 70) concerning the correct supplements to take, this was not demonstrated in their behaviour, with only a small number of women (37%, n = 49) taking a folic acid supplement before pregnancy. Women mistakenly perceived the timing of supplement advice as correct, with only a small number of women (18%, n = 23) considering the advice on supplements as too late.

conclusionsDespite the small sample size, this study demonstrated that women did not receive timely and/or accurate advice to enable them to take the recommended supplements at the optimal time. Women had the misconception that they understood the correct use of pregnancy supplements. This misunderstanding may be prevented by providing women intending to become pregnant with a structured, approved electronic source of information that improves their supplements uptake.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultConsumer Health InformationCross-Sectional StudiesDietDietary SupplementsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPerceptionPreconception CarePregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultExpectationsFolic acidKnowledgeMobile applicationNutritionPregnancySatisfactionVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID29801477
PMCPMC5970440

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.