Ghanaian parents' perceptions of pre and postnatal nutrient supplements and their effects

Caregiver perceptions of nutrition interventions in infants and children under 24 months of age: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Efficacy studies show early nutrition interventions improving infant nutrition status, but understanding caregiver acceptability is required for implementation of such interventions. This systematic review examines caregivers' perceptions of nutrition interventions in young children.

DESIGN

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO from date of online journal inception through December 2020. Interventions included oral (powder/liquid/tablet) and/or intravenous supplementation, food fortification and nutrition counselling. Inclusion criteria included primary research, data presented on caregiver perception and studies published in English. Quality assessment was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Studies underwent narrative synthesis using inductive thematic analysis.

SETTING

No restriction.

PARTICIPANTS

Caregivers of children under 24 months of age.

RESULTS

Of 11 798 records identified, thirty-seven publications were included. Interventions included oral supplementation, food fortification and nutrition counselling. Caregivers included mothers (83 %), fathers, grandparents and aunts. Perceptions were gathered through individual interviews, focus group discussions, questionnaires, surveys and ratings. Totally, 89 % of studies noted high acceptability (n 33 most notably increased appetite (n 17). In total, 57 % of studies (n 21) cited low acceptability, commonly from side effects (n 13) such as gastrointestinal issues, appetite loss and stained teeth.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive perceptions and enthusiasm for interventions were frequently reported. Key to implementation was the increased appetite noted by caregivers. A substantial proportion of studies reported negative perceptions, mainly due to side effects. In future interventions, mitigation and education around common side effects are crucial for acceptability. Understanding both positive and negative caregiver perceptions is important for informing future nutrition interventions and strengthening sustainability and implementation.

Preventive lipid-based nutrient supplements given with complementary foods to infants and young children 6 to 23 months of age for health, nutrition, and developmental outcomes

BACKGROUND

One nutritional intervention advocated to prevent malnutrition among children is lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS). LNS provide a range of vitamins and minerals, but unlike most other micronutrient supplements, LNS also provide energy, protein and essential fatty acids. Alternative recipes and formulations to LNS include fortified blended foods (FBF), which are foods fortified with vitamins and minerals, and micronutrient powders (MNP), which are a combination of vitamins and minerals, OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of preventive LNS given with complementary foods on health, nutrition and developmental outcomes of non-hospitalised infants and children six to 23 months of age, and whether or not they are more effective than other foods (including FBF or MNP).This review did not assess the effects of LNS as supplementary foods or therapeutic foods in the management of moderate and severe acute malnutrition.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 21 other databases and two trials registers for relevant studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews and contacted the authors of studies and other experts in the area for any ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the impact of LNS plus complementary foods given at point-of-use (for any dose, frequency, duration) to non-hospitalised infants and young children aged six to 23 months in stable or emergency settings and compared to no intervention, other supplementary foods (i.e. FBF), nutrition counselling or multiple micronutrient supplements or powders for point-of-use fortification of complementary foods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for relevance and, for those studies included in the review, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager software. We used a random-effects meta-analysis for combining data as the interventions differed significantly. We set out the main findings of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables,.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified a total of 8124 records, from which we included 17 studies (54 papers) with 23,200 children in the review. The included studies reported on one or more of the pre-specified primary outcomes, and five studies included multiple comparison groups.Overall, the majority of trials were at low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other sources of bias, but at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. Using the GRADE approach, we judged the quality of the evidence for most outcomes as low or moderate.LNS+complementary feeding compared with no intervention Thirteen studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with no intervention. LNS plus complementary feeding reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting by 7% (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.98; nine studies, 13,372 participants; moderate-quality evidence), severe stunting by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; five studies, 6151 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; eight studies; 13,172 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate underweight by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; eight studies, 13,073 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and anaemia by 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; five studies, 2332 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no impact of LNS plus complementary feeding on severe wasting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.46; three studies, 2329 participants) and severe underweight (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.13; two studies, 1729 participants). Adverse effects did not differ between the groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; three studies, 3382 participants).LNS+complementary feeding compared with FBF Five studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with other FBF, including corn soy blend and UNIMIX. We pooled four of the five studies in meta-analyses and found that, when compared to other FBF, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; three studies, 2828 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; two studies, 2290 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and moderate underweight (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; two studies, 2280 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and FBF for severe stunting (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.42; two studies, 729 participants; low-quality evidence), severe wasting (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.81; two studies, 735 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and severe underweight (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.25; one study, 173 participants; low-quality evidence).LNS+complementary feeding compared with MNP Four studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with MNP. We pooled data from three of the four studies in meta-analyses and found that compared to MNP, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate underweight (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; two studies, 2004 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and anaemia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; two studies, 557 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and MNP for moderate stunting (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; three studies, 2365 participants) and moderate wasting (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; two studies, 2004 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review suggest that LNS plus complementary feeding compared to no intervention is effective at improving growth outcomes and anaemia without adverse effects among children aged six to 23 months in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in Asia and Africa, and more effective if provided over a longer duration of time (over 12 months). Limited evidence also suggests that LNS plus complementary feeding is more effective than FBF and MNP at improving growth outcomes.

The effects of a nutrient supplementation intervention in Ghana on parents' investments in their children

A child’s endowment is a reflection of his/her genetic makeup and the conditions faced in early life. Parents build on their child’s endowment by investing resources in their child, and together, a child’s endowment and subsequent investments act as input into important later-life outcomes. A positive or negative shock to a child’s endowment can have a direct biological effect on a child’s long-term outcomes but may also affect parents’ decisions about investments in the health and human capital of their children. Using follow-up data collected several years after a randomized trial in Ghana, we explored whether maternal and child supplementation with small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (SQ-LNS) throughout much of the first 1,000 days influenced parental investments in the health and human capital of their children. Across the domains of family planning, breastfeeding, health, education, and paternal financial support, we found that, in general, the intervention did not affect investments in the treated child nor his/her untreated siblings. These results suggest that given production technologies, constraints, and preferences, the intervention either did not change parents’ optimal investment strategies or that the effects of the intervention, namely increased birth size and attained length at 18 months of age, were too small for parents to perceive or to have any meaningful impact on parents’ expectations about the returns to investments in their children.

Prenatal and postnatal lipid-based nutrient supplementation and cognitive, social-emotional, and motor function in preschool-aged children in Ghana: a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Adequate nutrition is necessary for brain development during pregnancy and infancy. Few randomized controlled trials of supplementation during these periods have measured later developmental outcomes.

Objective

Our objective was to investigate the effects of provision of prenatal and postnatal lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) on child development at preschool age.

Methods

We conducted a follow-up study of 966 children aged 4-6 y in 2016, born to women who participated in the International Lipid-Based Nutrient Supplements-DYAD trial conducted in Ghana in 2009-2014, representing 79% of eligible children. Women ≤20 weeks of gestation were randomized to daily LNS or multiple micronutrient (MMN) capsules during pregnancy through 6 mo postpartum or iron and folic acid (IFA) capsules during pregnancy and calcium placebo capsules during 6 mo postpartum. Children in the LNS group received LNS from 6 to 18 mo. Primary outcomes of this follow-up study were (1) a cognitive factor score based on a test battery adapted from several standard tests, 2) fine motor score (9-hole pegboard test), and (3) social-emotional difficulties (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SDQ). Eight secondary outcomes were calculated in specific domains (e.g., language, SDQ prosocial). Analysis was by a complete case intention to treat in a 2-group comparison: LNS compared with non-LNS (MMN + IFA).

Results

Children in the LNS group had significantly lower social-emotional difficulties z-scores than children in the non-LNS group (adjusted for child age β = -0.12, 95% CI: -0.25, 0.02, P = 0.087; fully adjusted β = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.29, -0.03, P = 0.013). The effect of LNS on social-emotional difficulties score was larger among children living in households with lower home environment scores (P-interaction = 0.081). No other outcomes differed between the 2 intervention groups.

Conclusions

Provision of LNS during the first 1000 d of development improved behavioral function, particularly for children from low nurturing and stimulation households, but did not affect cognition at preschool age in this setting. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT00970866.

Lipid-based nutrient supplements for maternal, birth, and infant developmental outcomes

BACKGROUND

Ready-to-use lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) are a highly nutrient-dense supplement, which could be a good source of macro- and micronutrients for pregnant women who need to supplement their nutrient intake.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LNS for maternal, birth and infant outcomes in pregnant women. Secondary objectives were to explore the most appropriate composition, frequency and duration of LNS administration.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 22 other databases and two trials registers for any published and ongoing studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and we contacted the authors of included studies and other experts in the field to identify any studies we may have missed, including any unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared LNS given in pregnancy to no intervention, placebo, iron folic acid (IFA), multiple micronutrients (MMN) or nutritional counselling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in 8018 pregnant women. All four studies took place in stable community settings in low- and middle-income countries: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Malawi. None were in emergency settings. The oldest trial was published in 2009. Of the four included studies, one compared LNS to IFA, one compared LNS to MMN, and two compared LNS to both IFA and MMN.We considered the included studies to be of medium to high quality, and we rated the quality of the evidence as moderate using the GRADE approach.LNS versus IFAMaternal outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups as regards maternal gestational weight gain per week (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 1.36; 2 studies, 3539 participants). One study (536 participants) showed a two-fold increase in the prevalence of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the IFA group, but no difference between the groups as regards adverse effects. There was no difference between the two groups for maternal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.41; 3 studies, 5628 participants).Birth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for low birth weight (LBW) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; 3 studies, 4826 participants), though newborns in the LNS group had a slightly higher mean birth weight (mean difference (MD) 53.28 g, 95% CI 28.22 to 78.33; 3 studies, 5077 participants) and birth length (cm) (MD 0.24 cm, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; 3 studies, 4986 participants). There was a reduction in the proportion of infants who were small for gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; 3 studies, 4823 participants) and had newborn stunting (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94; 2 studies, 4166 participants) in the LNS group, but no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for preterm delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4924 participants), stillbirth (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.48; 3 studies, 5575 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.51). The current evidence for child developmental outcomes is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.LNS versus MMNMaternal outcomes: one study (662 participants) showed no difference between the LNS and MMN groups as regards gestational weight gain per week or adverse effects. Another study (557 participants) showed an increased risk of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the MMN group.Birth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and MMN groups for LBW (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 3 studies, 2404 participants), birth weight (MD 23.67 g, 95% CI -10.53 to 57.86; 3 studies, 2573 participants), birth length (MD 0.20 cm, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.42; 3 studies, 2567 participants), SGA (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 3 studies, 2393 participants), preterm delivery (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42; 3 studies, 2630 participants), head circumference z score (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21; 2 studies, 1549 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.15; 1 study, 1175 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review suggest that LNS supplementation has a slight, positive effect on weight at birth, length at birth, SGA and newborn stunting compared to IFA. LNS and MMN were comparable for all maternal, birth and infant outcomes. Both IFA and MMN were better at reducing maternal anaemia when compared to LNS. We did not find any trials for LNS given to pregnant women in emergency settings.Readers should interpret the beneficial findings of the review with caution since the evidence comes from a small number of trials, with one-large scale study (conducted in community settings in Bangladesh) driving most of the impact. In addition, effect sizes are too small to propose any concrete recommendation for practice.

Acceptability and Utilization of Three Nutritional Supplements during Pregnancy: Findings from a Longitudinal, Mixed-Methods Study in Niger

Nutritional status in pregnancy is a key determinant of birth outcomes. In low-income countries, maternal diets are often limited, and daily nutrient supplements are recommended to fill nutrient gaps. As a result, it is important to understand the factors influencing acceptability and utilization of nutrient supplements in these settings. Qualitative data (individual interviews and focus group discussions with pregnant women, household members, and study staff) and quantitative data (unannounced household spot checks) were collected in 24 villages in the Maradi region of south-central Niger. Each village was randomly assigned to one of three study arms, with pregnant women receiving either iron and folic acid (IFA) supplements, multiple micronutrient (MMN) supplements, or medium-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (MQ-LNS) for daily consumption during pregnancy. Data were collected longitudinally to capture changes in perspective as women progressed through their pregnancy. Participants accepted all three supplement types, and perceived a wide range of health benefits attributed to supplement consumption. However, several important barriers to appropriate consumption were reported, and rumors about the supplements leading to childbirth complications also decreased utilization. The household spot checks suggested that IFA had the highest level of correct consumption. Overall, despite a stated high level of acceptance and enthusiasm for the supplements among participants and their household members, certain fears, side effects, and organoleptic factors led to decreased utilization. The effectiveness of future programs to improve maternal nutritional status through supplementation may be improved by understanding perceived barriers and facilitating factors among participants and tailoring communication efforts appropriately.

Ghanaian parents' perceptions of pre and postnatal nutrient supplements and their effects

Small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (SQ-LNS) have been studied in efficacy and effectiveness trials, but little is known about how parents perceive the products and their effects. In a randomised trial in Ghana, efficacy of SQ-LNS provided to women during pregnancy and the first 6 months postpartum and to their children from 6 to 18 months of age was assessed by comparison with iron-folic acid (IFA) capsules and multiple micronutrient (MMN) capsules provided to women. In a follow-up study conducted when the index children from the original trial were between 4 and 6 years of age, we used survey-based methods to assess retrospective and current parental perceptions of nutrient supplements generally and of SQ-LNS and their effects compared with perceptions IFA and MMN capsules. Most parents perceived that the assigned supplements (SQ-LNS, IFA, or MMN) positively impacted the mother during pregnancy (approximately 89% of both mothers and fathers) and during lactation (84% of mothers and 86% of fathers). Almost all (≥90%) of mothers and fathers perceived that the assigned supplement positively impacted the index child and expected continued positive impacts on the child's health and human capital into the future. A smaller percentage of parents perceived negative impacts of the supplements (7%-17% of mothers and 4%-12% of fathers). Perceptions of positive impacts and of negative impacts did not differ by intervention group. The results suggest that similar populations would likely be receptive to programs to deliver SQ-LNS or micronutrient capsules.