4.5 Article

Postpartum traditions and nutrition practices among urban Lao women and their infants in Vientiane, Lao PDR

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 323-331

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602928

关键词

food taboo; Lao PDR; mother; beliefs; children; infant

资金

  1. Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie
  2. Wellcome Trust (UK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Objective: To assess the traditional postpartum practices, mother and child nutritional status and associated factors. Subjects/Methods: A cross-sectional study in 41 randomly selected villages on the outskirts of Vientiane capital city, Lao PDR (Laos). 300 pairs of infants (< 6 months of age) and their mothers were enrolled. Information was collected about pregnancy, delivery and traditional practices through a standardized questionnaire. Dietary intake and food frequency were estimated using the 24 h recall method, calibrated bowls and FAO food composition tables. Mothers' and infants' anthropometry was assessed and multivariate analysis performed. Results: Contrasting with a high antenatal care attendance (91%) and delivery under health professional supervision (72%), a high prevalence of traditional practices was found, including exposure to hot beds of embers (97%), use of traditional herb tea as the only beverage (95%) and restricted diets (90%). Twenty-five mothers (8.3%) were underweight. Mothers had insufficient intake of calories (55.6%), lipids (67.4%), iron (92.0%), vitamins A (99.3%) and C (45%), thiamin (96.6%) and calcium (96.6%). Chewed glutinous rice was given to infants as an early (mean 34.6, 95% CI:29.3-39.8 days) complementary food by 53.7% of mothers, and was associated with stunting in 10% children (OR=1.35, 95% CI:1.04-1.75). Conclusion: The high prevalence of traditional postpartum restricted diets and practices, and inadequate maternal nutritional intake in urban Laos, suggest that antenatal care may be an important opportunity to improve postpartum diets.

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

4.5
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