Gestational weight gain information: seeking and sources among pregnant women

• Published in: BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2015-08, Vol.15 (1), p.164-164, Article 164
• Main Authors: Willcox, Jane C, Campbell, Karen J, McCarthy, Elizabeth A, Lappas, Martha, Ball, Kylie, Crawford, David, Shub, Alexis, Wilkinson, Shelley A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Australia; Behavior; Body Mass Index; Confidence Intervals; Cross-Sectional Studies; Education; Female; Gestational Age; Health care; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health literacy; Humans; Industrialized nations; Information sources; Internet; Knowledge; Logistic Models; Maternal & child health; Medical personnel; Minority & ethnic groups; Multivariate Analysis; Nutrition; Obesity; Obesity - prevention & control; Odds Ratio; Patient Education as Topic - organization & administration; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnant Women - psychology; Prenatal Care - organization & administration; Program Evaluation; Risk Assessment; Surveys and Questionnaires; Systematic review; Weight control; Weight Gain; Womens health
• ISSN: 1471-2393; 1471-2393
• DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0600-6

Promoting healthy gestational weight gain (GWG) is important for preventing obstetric and perinatal morbidity, along with obesity in both mother and child. Provision of GWG guidelines by health professionals predicts women meeting GWG guidelines. Research concerning women's GWG information sources is limited. This study assessed pregnant women's sources of GWG information and how, where and which women seek GWG information. Consecutive women (n = 1032) received a mailed questionnaire after their first antenatal visit to a public maternity hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Recalled provision of GWG guidelines by doctors and midwives, recalled provided GWG goals, and the obtaining of GWG information and information sources were assessed. Participants (n = 368; 35.7% response) averaged 32.5 years of age and 20.8 weeks gestation, with 33.7% speaking a language other than English. One in ten women recalled receiving GWG guidelines from doctors or midwives, of which half were consistent with Institute of Medicine guidelines. More than half the women (55.4%) had actively sought GWG information. Nulliparous (OR 7.07, 95% CI = 3.91-12.81) and obese (OR 1.96, 95% CI = 1.05-3.65) women were more likely to seek information. Underweight (OR 0.29, 95% CI = 0.09-0.97) women and those working part time (OR 0.52, 95% CI = 0.28-0.97) were less likely to seek information. Most frequently reported GWG sources included the internet (82.7%), books (55.4%) and friends (51.5%). The single most important sources were identified as the internet (32.8%), general practitioners (16.9%) and books (14.9%). More than half of women were seeking GWG guidance and were more likely to consult non-clinician sources. The small numbers given GWG targets, and the dominance of non-clinical information sources, reinforces that an important opportunity to provide evidence based advice and guidance in the antenatal care setting is currently being missed.