4.1 Article

Intake of folic acid by Polish women with higher education - a survey research: can we do more?

Journal

GINEKOLOGIA POLSKA
Volume 88, Issue 8, Pages 428-433

Publisher

VIA MEDICA
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0079

Keywords

congenital abnormalities; folic acid; neural tube defects

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of the study is to determine efficacy of the Primary Prevention Program of Neural Tube Defects in Polish with higher education in 5-year interval. Material and methods: Survey research was conducted twice (in 2008 and 2013) in 630 female students of universities: 305 female medical students and 325 female non-medical students. The survey was also done among women aged 27-35 who graduated from medical or non-medical universities and have at least one child. Questions concerned knowledge about prophylaxis and periconceptional folic acid intake. Chi square test was used to assess the significance. Results: Knowledge concerning prophylaxis was significantly higher in female medical students comparing to non-medical ones, both in 2008 (p < 0,001), and in 2013 (p < 0,001). 92.9% in 2008 and 93.9% in 2013 of medical students knew about the necessity of periconceptional folic acid intake. Awareness of female non-medical students was lower (2008 - 35.3% and 2013 - 41.1%) and did not change in the 5-year long period (p = 0.3). There was no significant difference in preconceptional folic acid intake among mothers with medical and non-medical education (53.3% vs. 45% p = 0.4). However, the highest folic acid intake was among mothers - medical doctors who treat children with neural tube defect. Conclusions: Difference between medical and non-medical students shows that better educational programs may improve knowledge about prophylaxis. Aside from knowledge, compliance with recommendations of Primary Prevention Program of Neural Tube Defects is unsatisfactory.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available