4.7 Article

Dietary Patterns in Pregnancy and Effects on Nutrient Intake in the Mid-South: The Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE) Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 1511-1530

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu5051511

关键词

nutrient intake; pregnancy; mixed dietary patterns; food frequency questionnaire

资金

  1. Urban Child Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary patterns are sensitive to differences across socio-economic strata or cultural habits and may impact programing of diseases in later life. The purpose of this study was to identify distinct dietary patterns during pregnancy in the Mid-South using factor analysis. Furthermore, we aimed to analyze the differences in the food groups and in macro-and micronutrients among the different food patterns. The study was a cross-sectional analysis of 1155 pregnant women (mean age 26.5 +/- 5.4 years; 62% African American, 35% Caucasian, 3% Other; and pre-pregnancy BMI 27.6 +/- 7.5 kg/m(2)). Using food frequency questionnaire data collected from participants in the Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE) study between 16 and 28 weeks of gestation, dietary patterns were identified using factor analysis. Three major dietary patterns, namely, Healthy, Processed, and US Southern were identified among pregnant women from the Mid-South. Further analysis of the three main patterns revealed four mixed dietary patterns, i.e., Healthy-Processed, Healthy-US Southern, Processed-US Southern, and overall Mixed. These dietary patterns were different (p < 0.001) from each other in almost all the food items, macro-and micro nutrients and aligned across socioeconomic and racial groups. Our study describes unique dietary patterns in the Mid-South, consumed by a cohort of women enrolled in a prospective study examining the association of maternal nutritional factors during pregnancy that are known to affect brain and cognitive development by age 3.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据