Loading…

Dietary Quality of Pregnant and Child Bearing-Age Women and Its Relation to Nutritional Status: East Jakarta Cohort Study

Background/Aims: Many studies indicated that urban women are at risk of malnutrition. However, studies on dietary quality during pregnancy and years after and their impact to the nutritional status are limited. Therefore, we assessed the dietary quality during pregnancy, three years after pregnancy...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of nutrition and metabolism 2019-01, Vol.75, p.339
Main Authors: Octavia, Lestari, Agustina, Rina, Winanda, Mutia, Sartika, Arindah Nur, Utami, Annisa Dwi, Dewi, Yayang A, NugrahiniH, Anastasia Shinta, Prafiantini, Erfi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background/Aims: Many studies indicated that urban women are at risk of malnutrition. However, studies on dietary quality during pregnancy and years after and their impact to the nutritional status are limited. Therefore, we assessed the dietary quality during pregnancy, three years after pregnancy and determined its relation to mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC). Methods: An East Jakarta cohort prospective study was initiated in 2015 and followed-up until 2018. MUAC was assessed by standardized measuring tape. The food consumption was taken from 2-day 24-hr recalls. Dietary Quality Index-Pregnancy (DQI-P) scores with 8 components were calculated from Pregnancy, Infection and Nutrition study in USA. The difference between DQI-P in two periods was assessed by the Wilcoxon-signed rank-test. Indonesian, Thai, and American food database were taken to calculate the dietary scores. Multivariate linear-regression was performed to determine the association between DQI-P score and MUAC combining two periods. A total of 116 women was followed up. Results: The median of DQI-P score during gestation in 2015 was significantly higher than non-pregnancy period in 2018 [35 (27.5; 41.5) versus 25 (17.0; 30.0); p-value
ISSN:0250-6807
1421-9697
DOI:10.1159/000501751