产前补充多种微量营养素(MMS)与补充铁和叶酸(IFA)在孕妇中的可接受性:一项叙述性综述。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Nutrients Pub Date : 2025-09-18 DOI:10.3390/nu17182994
Mihaela C Kissell, Carolina Pereira, Filomena Gomes, Kidist Woldesenbet, Masresha Tessema, Hiwot Kelemu, Ramadhani Noor, Luz Escubil, Aishwarya Panicker, Ashutosh Mishra, Mai-Anh Hoang, Hou Kroeun, Cassandra Sauer, Meng Sokchea, Crystal D Karakochuk, Masako Horino, Keith P West, Akihiro Seita, Djeinam Toure, Umu H Jalloh, Francis Moses, Aminata S Koroma, Bakary Diarra, Ousmane Camara, Ouassa Sanogo, Kristine Garn, Martin N Mwangi
{"title":"产前补充多种微量营养素(MMS)与补充铁和叶酸(IFA)在孕妇中的可接受性:一项叙述性综述。","authors":"Mihaela C Kissell, Carolina Pereira, Filomena Gomes, Kidist Woldesenbet, Masresha Tessema, Hiwot Kelemu, Ramadhani Noor, Luz Escubil, Aishwarya Panicker, Ashutosh Mishra, Mai-Anh Hoang, Hou Kroeun, Cassandra Sauer, Meng Sokchea, Crystal D Karakochuk, Masako Horino, Keith P West, Akihiro Seita, Djeinam Toure, Umu H Jalloh, Francis Moses, Aminata S Koroma, Bakary Diarra, Ousmane Camara, Ouassa Sanogo, Kristine Garn, Martin N Mwangi","doi":"10.3390/nu17182994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Antenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) improves birth outcomes more effectively than iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation alone. However, the acceptability of MMS among pregnant individuals, a critical factor for adherence and program success, remains poorly defined and inconsistently assessed. This narrative review proposes a comprehensive definition of \"acceptability\" in the context of nutritional supplementation and evaluates the evidence on the acceptability of MMS compared to IFA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a systematic literature search across Embase, Medline, and Scopus to identify studies (including grey literature) reporting on acceptability-related outcomes for MMS versus IFA among pregnant individuals. Studies exploring dimensions such as organoleptic properties, ease of consumption, side effects, cultural appropriateness, and socioeconomic factors were included. <b>Results</b>: Out of 1056 screened studies, five informed a novel multi-dimensional definition of acceptability. Six studies assessed acceptability-related characteristics. MMS was generally accepted across most organoleptic domains. Most studies reported fewer or comparable adverse side effects for MMS as compared to IFA. Studies consistently reported more perceived benefits for MMS than IFA. Facilitating factors included trust in health professionals, free provision, and family support. Barriers included poor taste or smell, fear of side effects, misconceptions, cost, and lack of family support. <b>Conclusions</b>: Antenatal MMS is widely acceptable in LMICs. Addressing socio-cultural, sensory, and socioeconomic factors is essential to increase uptake and adherence. This review provides a clear, standardized definition of acceptability to guide future research and inform effective program design.</p>","PeriodicalId":19486,"journal":{"name":"Nutrients","volume":"17 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12472735/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability of Antenatal Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) Compared to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) Supplementation in Pregnant Individuals: A Narrative Review.\",\"authors\":\"Mihaela C Kissell, Carolina Pereira, Filomena Gomes, Kidist Woldesenbet, Masresha Tessema, Hiwot Kelemu, Ramadhani Noor, Luz Escubil, Aishwarya Panicker, Ashutosh Mishra, Mai-Anh Hoang, Hou Kroeun, Cassandra Sauer, Meng Sokchea, Crystal D Karakochuk, Masako Horino, Keith P West, Akihiro Seita, Djeinam Toure, Umu H Jalloh, Francis Moses, Aminata S Koroma, Bakary Diarra, Ousmane Camara, Ouassa Sanogo, Kristine Garn, Martin N Mwangi\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/nu17182994\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Antenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) improves birth outcomes more effectively than iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation alone. However, the acceptability of MMS among pregnant individuals, a critical factor for adherence and program success, remains poorly defined and inconsistently assessed. This narrative review proposes a comprehensive definition of \\\"acceptability\\\" in the context of nutritional supplementation and evaluates the evidence on the acceptability of MMS compared to IFA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a systematic literature search across Embase, Medline, and Scopus to identify studies (including grey literature) reporting on acceptability-related outcomes for MMS versus IFA among pregnant individuals. Studies exploring dimensions such as organoleptic properties, ease of consumption, side effects, cultural appropriateness, and socioeconomic factors were included. <b>Results</b>: Out of 1056 screened studies, five informed a novel multi-dimensional definition of acceptability. Six studies assessed acceptability-related characteristics. MMS was generally accepted across most organoleptic domains. Most studies reported fewer or comparable adverse side effects for MMS as compared to IFA. Studies consistently reported more perceived benefits for MMS than IFA. Facilitating factors included trust in health professionals, free provision, and family support. Barriers included poor taste or smell, fear of side effects, misconceptions, cost, and lack of family support. <b>Conclusions</b>: Antenatal MMS is widely acceptable in LMICs. Addressing socio-cultural, sensory, and socioeconomic factors is essential to increase uptake and adherence. This review provides a clear, standardized definition of acceptability to guide future research and inform effective program design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrients\",\"volume\":\"17 18\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12472735/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrients\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17182994\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrients","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17182994","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:产前补充多种微量营养素(MMS)比单独补充铁和叶酸(IFA)更有效地改善出生结局。然而,孕妇对MMS的可接受性(这是依从性和项目成功的关键因素)仍然定义不清,评估也不一致。这篇叙述性综述提出了营养补充背景下“可接受性”的综合定义,并评估了在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)与IFA相比MMS可接受性的证据。方法:我们在Embase、Medline和Scopus上进行了系统的文献检索,以确定报告MMS与IFA在孕妇中可接受性相关结果的研究(包括灰色文献)。研究包括感官特性、易用性、副作用、文化适宜性和社会经济因素等维度。结果:在1056项筛选研究中,有5项研究提供了可接受性的多维定义。六项研究评估了可接受性相关特征。MMS在大多数感官领域被普遍接受。大多数研究报告,与IFA相比,MMS的不良副作用较少或相当。研究一致报告了MMS比IFA更明显的益处。促进因素包括对卫生专业人员的信任、免费提供和家庭支持。障碍包括味道或气味差,担心副作用,误解,成本和缺乏家庭支持。结论:产前MMS在低收入国家被广泛接受。解决社会文化、感官和社会经济因素对于提高吸收和依从性至关重要。这篇综述为可接受性提供了一个清晰、标准化的定义,以指导未来的研究并为有效的程序设计提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acceptability of Antenatal Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) Compared to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) Supplementation in Pregnant Individuals: A Narrative Review.

Background/Objectives: Antenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) improves birth outcomes more effectively than iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation alone. However, the acceptability of MMS among pregnant individuals, a critical factor for adherence and program success, remains poorly defined and inconsistently assessed. This narrative review proposes a comprehensive definition of "acceptability" in the context of nutritional supplementation and evaluates the evidence on the acceptability of MMS compared to IFA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search across Embase, Medline, and Scopus to identify studies (including grey literature) reporting on acceptability-related outcomes for MMS versus IFA among pregnant individuals. Studies exploring dimensions such as organoleptic properties, ease of consumption, side effects, cultural appropriateness, and socioeconomic factors were included. Results: Out of 1056 screened studies, five informed a novel multi-dimensional definition of acceptability. Six studies assessed acceptability-related characteristics. MMS was generally accepted across most organoleptic domains. Most studies reported fewer or comparable adverse side effects for MMS as compared to IFA. Studies consistently reported more perceived benefits for MMS than IFA. Facilitating factors included trust in health professionals, free provision, and family support. Barriers included poor taste or smell, fear of side effects, misconceptions, cost, and lack of family support. Conclusions: Antenatal MMS is widely acceptable in LMICs. Addressing socio-cultural, sensory, and socioeconomic factors is essential to increase uptake and adherence. This review provides a clear, standardized definition of acceptability to guide future research and inform effective program design.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrients
Nutrients NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
15.30%
发文量
4599
审稿时长
16.74 days
期刊介绍: Nutrients (ISSN 2072-6643) is an international, peer-reviewed open access advanced forum for studies related to Human Nutrition. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信