ArticleBMC nutrition2026
Dietary folate education versus once-weekly iron folic acid supplementation for improving folate status in reproductive-aged women: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe folate status of women of reproductive age (WRA) in Thailand is suboptimal for reducing risk of neural tube defects (NTD). This research aimed to compare the effect of dietary folate education based on the health belief model and once-weekly iron folic acid (IFA) supplementation on folate status.
methodsThis was a pre-post-test 12-week quasi-experimental study with three groups: (1.) dietary folate education program (30-min, once-weekly), (2.) 2.8 mg folic acid + 60 mg iron (IFA supplement, once-weekly), or (3.) comparison group (no intervention). Participants were WRA recruited from three factories. Knowledge, perceptions (susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers), self-efficacy, and cues to action in relation to folate and NTD, together with dietary folate intake, and red blood cell (RBC) folate concentration were evaluated at pretest (week 0) and post-test (week 13). The generalized estimated equation was used to analyze within-group and between-group differences at post-test, after adjusting for covariates.
resultsTwenty-three, 25, and 18 participants completed the study in the dietary folate education, IFA supplementation and comparison groups, respectively. Perceived barriers remained unchanged in the folate education group at post-test, and the mean (95% CI) increase in dietary folate intake from pretest to post-test in the folate education group was only 53.0 µg/day, after adjustment for covariates. The change in RBC folate concentration at post-test in the folate education and comparison groups did not differ (-23.1 (-29.8, 67.5) nmol/L; p = 0.307). In contrast, the IFA supplementation group showed an increase in RBC folate concentration from pretest to post-test that was 49.2 (2.7, 95.6) nmol/L greater than the comparison group (p = 0.038).
conclusionsFolate status did not improve after a dietary folate education program for 12-weeks, which could have been partly because of the intervention's limitations. Future education programs may consider a longer intervention duration and larger sample size. Reducing perceived barriers may also facilitate behavior change. Once-weekly IFA supplementation (2.8 mg folic acid per week) for 12 weeks might contribute to an improvement in folate status in non-pregnant women in a real-world setting. However, the findings should be interpretated with caution in view of study limitations.
trial registrationISRCTN13360510 Registered 26/11/2025 Retrospectively registered.
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.