ArticlePublic health nutrition2020
Using a citizens' jury approach to determine a good nutrition resource for pregnant women.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delivering optimal weight gain advice to pregnant women by lead maternity carer midwives in a real-world setting to optimise health outcomes (DOT study): a case study protocol.BMC public health · 2025Article
- "You Want to Eat Healthy, Especially When You're Pregnant. But Sometimes, It's Just Not Possible": Perceptions of Facilitators and Barriers to Healthy Food and Diet Practices During Pre-Conception and Pregnancy.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe development of user-friendly nutrition resources for pregnant women seldom involves end-users. This qualitative study used a citizens' jury approach to determine if our modification of a longstanding, frequently used dietitian-informed diet and diabetes booklet was deemed to be a good healthy eating resource for pregnant women.
designMidwives recruited thirteen first-time pregnant women not requiring specialist obstetric care or specialist dietetic advice for any reason. Participants were sent a copy of the modified healthy eating in pregnancy booklet prior to 'jury day'. Five women were unable to attend the citizens' jury citing reasons such as early labour. At the jury, five experts presented evidence. Participants adjourned, with an independent facilitator, to 'deliberate' as to whether the resource was suitable or not. The verdict was presented, and subsequent discussion was audio-recorded, transcribed and inductively content analysed.
settingSouthland, New Zealand.
participantsPregnant women aged 19-35 years (n 8), of whom half had a household income <$NZ30 000.
resultsThe verdict was 'Yes'; the resource was good. Three themes were derived: communication of health information, resource content and harm reduction in pregnancy. Based on these data, ways to enhance the quality and usability of the booklet were evident.
conclusionsCitizens' juries can be used to obtain an independent assessment by end-users of health resources. Our modified diet and diabetes booklet was considered suitable for providing healthy eating advice to pregnant women. Inclusion of end-users' perspectives is critical for end-user relevant content, comprehension and resource credibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.