4.0 Article

Lifestyle, nutrient intake, iron status, and pregnancy outcome in pregnant women of advanced maternal age

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 52-59

出版社

KOREAN NUTRITION SOC
DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2011.5.1.52

关键词

Advanced aged pregnancy; intake; lifestyle; pregnancy outcome

资金

  1. Sungshin Women's University [2009-2-11-042/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate how advanced maternal age influences lifestyle, nutrient intake, iron status, and pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women. The subjects of this study were 112 pregnant women who were receiving prenatal care at gynecologists located in Seoul. The subjects were divided into two groups according to their ages: those over age 35 were the advanced age group of pregnant women (AP) and those under age 35 were the young age group of pregnant women (YP). General factors, nutrient intakes, iron status, and pregnancy outcomes of the two groups were then compared. It was found that 72.5% of the YP group and 51.2% of the AP group had pre-pregnancy alcohol drinking experience; indicating that the YP group had more pre-pregnancy alcohol consumption than the AP group (P < 0.05). The only difference found in nutrient intake between the two groups was their niacin intakes which were 16.83 +/- 8.20 mg/day and 13.76 +/- 5.28 mg/day, respectively. When gestational age was shorter than 38.7 weeks, the average infant birth weight was 2.95 +/- 0.08 kg, and when gestational age was longer than 40 weeks, it averaged at about 3.42 +/- 0.08 kg. In other words, as gestational age increased, infant birth weight increased (P < 0.0001), and when maternal weight increased more than 15 kg, the infant birth weight increased significantly (P < 0.05)). In conclusion, in order to secure healthy human resources, with respect to advanced aged women, it is necessary to intervene by promoting daily habits that consist of strategic increases in folate and calcium intake along with appropriate amounts of exercise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据