4.7 Article

A longitudinal study of weight gain in pregnancy in Malawi: unconditional and conditional standards

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 99, 期 2, 页码 296-301

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.113.074120

关键词

-

资金

  1. Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council under its Clinician Scientist Award
  2. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  3. Academy of Finland [79787, 207010]
  4. Foundation for Pediatric Research in Finland
  5. Medical Research Fund of Tampere University Hospital
  6. Academy of Finland (AKA) [207010, 207010, 79787, 79787] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To monitor weight gain during pregnancy and assess its relation with perinatal health outcomes, both unconditional (cross-sectional) and conditional (longitudinal) standards of maternal weight are needed. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate unconditional and conditional maternal weight standards for use in Malawi, Africa. Design: Longitudinal data were drawn from an antenatal care intervention study conducted in Malawi. Participants were selected for this analysis if they had a healthy profile defined by body mass index and infectious disease measures and delivered healthy singletons defined by birth weight, gestational age, and neonatal survival status. A total of 1733 measurements from 358 women were randomly split to form development and validation samples. Results: Unconditional and conditional standards were developed and validated. An electronic spreadsheet implements the calculations. Weight gain during pregnancy was substantially slower in this cohort than the US Institute of Medicine recommendation. The percentiles increased linearly; therefore, the use of the conditional standards is robust to inaccuracy in gestational age estimates. Conclusion: The standards can facilitate researchers and clinicians to examine maternal weight and weight gain and estimate their associations with pregnancy outcomes in Malawi.

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

4.7
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