Search

Despite strong policy and program commitment, essential maternal nutrition services are not reaching enough women in many countries. This paper examined multifactorial determinants (personal, family, community, and health services) associated with maternal nutrition practices in Uttar Pradesh, India. Data were from a household survey of pregnant (n = 667) and recently delivered women (n = 1,835). Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to examine the determinants of four outcomes: consumption of diverse diets, consumption of iron folic acid (IFA) and calcium tablets, and weight monitoring during pregnancy. Population attributable risk analysis was used to estimate how much the outcomes can be improved under optimal program implementation. During pregnancy, women consumed 28 IFA and 8 calcium tablets, 18% consumed diverse diet, and 17% were weighed ≥3 times. Nutrition knowledge was associated with consumption of diverse diet (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2 times), IFA (2.3 times), calcium (11.7 times), and weight monitoring (1.3 times). Beliefs and self‐efficacy were associated with IFA (OR = 2.0) and calcium consumption (OR = 4.6). Family support and adequate health services were also associated with better nutrition practices. Under optimal program implementation, we estimate that 51% of women would have adequate diet diversity, an average consumption of 98 IFA, and 106 calcium tablets, and women would be weighed 4.9 times during pregnancy. Strengthening existing program operations and increasing demand for services has the potential to result in large improvements in maternal nutrition practices from current baseline levels but may not be sufficient to meet World Health Organization‐recommended levels without creating an enabling environment including improvements in education and income levels to support behaviour change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Clinical trial results have shown that, in glucocorticoid‐treated patients, treatment with denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously once every 6 months (Q6M) increased spine and hip bone mineral density (BMD) at month 12 significantly more than treatment with risedronate 5 mg orally once daily (QD). The present analysis was performed to compare efficacy and characterize safety through month 24. Methods: This phase III study enrolled men and women ≥18 years old who had received ≥7.5 mg daily prednisone or equivalent for <3 months (glucocorticoid‐initiating) or for ≥3 months (glucocorticoid‐continuing) before screening. All patients <50 years old had a history of osteoporotic fracture. Glucocorticoid‐continuing patients ≥50 years old had T scores of −2.0 or less (or −1.0 or less with fracture history). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously Q6M or risedronate 5 mg orally QD for 24 months, with daily calcium and vitamin D. Results: Of 795 patients, 590 (74.2%) completed the study (in the glucocorticoid‐initiating group, 109 of 145 patients treated with denosumab and 117 of 145 patients treated with risedronate; in the glucocorticoid‐continuing group, 186 of 253 patients treated with denosumab and 178 of 252 patients treated with risedronate). Denosumab was superior to risedronate in increasing lumbar spine and total hip BMD at all time points assessed, among glucocorticoid‐initiating patients (24‐month lumbar spine: BMD increase of 6.2% versus 1.7%, respectively [P < 0.001]; 24‐month total hip: BMD increase of 3.1% versus 0.0% [P < 0.001]) and among glucocorticoid‐continuing patients (24‐month lumbar spine: BMD increase of 6.4% versus 3.2% [P < 0.001]; 24‐month total hip: BMD increase of 2.9% versus 0.5% [P < 0.001]). Adverse events, serious adverse events (including infections), and fractures were similar between treatment groups. Conclusion: Denosumab was superior to risedronate in terms of increases in spine and hip BMD through month 24, and the safety profile was similar between treatment groups. Denosumab may offer a new osteoporosis treatment option for glucocorticoid‐treated patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Understanding implementation of interventions is critical to illuminate if, how, and why the interventions achieve impact. Alive & Thrive integrated a nutrition intervention into an existing maternal, neonatal, and child health (MNCH) programme in Bangladesh, documenting improvements in women's micronutrient supplement intake and dietary diversity. Here, we examined how well the nutrition intervention was implemented and which elements of implementation explained intervention impact. Survey data were collected in 2015 and 2016 from frontline health workers (FLW) and households in areas randomized to nutrition‐focused MNCH (intensified interpersonal counselling, community mobilization, distribution of free micronutrient supplements, and weight‐gain monitoring) or standard MNCH (antenatal care with standard nutrition counselling). Seven intervention elements were measured: time commitment, training quality, knowledge, coverage, counselling quality, supervision, and incentives. Multiple regression was used to derive difference‐in‐differences (DID) estimates. Using village‐level endline data, path analysis was used to determine which elements most explained intervention impacts. FLWs in both areas were highly committed and well supervised. Coverage was high (>90%) for counselling, supplement provision, and weight‐gain monitoring. Improvements were significantly greater for nutrition‐focused MNCH, versus standard MNCH, for training quality (DID: 2.42 points of 10), knowledge (DID: 1.20 points), delivery coverage (DID: 4.16 points), and counselling quality (DID: 1.60 points). Impact was substantially explained by coverage and delivery quality. In conclusion, integration nutrition intervention into the MNCH programme was feasible and well‐implemented. Although differences in coverage and counselling quality most explained impacts, all intervention elements—particularly FLW training and performance—were likely important to achieving impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]