Provision of information by midwives for pregnant women in England on guidance on foods/drinks to avoid or limit.

Diet Midwife Nutrition guidance PEAR Study Pregnancy Public health nutrition

Journal

BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Mar 2023
Historique:
received: 22 08 2022
accepted: 10 02 2023
entrez: 8 3 2023
pubmed: 9 3 2023
medline: 11 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The National Health Service (NHS) website gives guidance for pregnant women in England on foods/drinks to avoid or limit because of microbiological, toxicological or teratogenic hazards. These include, for example, some types of soft cheeses, fish/seafood and meat products. This website and midwives are trusted sources of information for pregnant women, but the ways in which midwives can be supported to provide clear and accurate information are unknown. The aims were to: (1) determine midwives' accuracy of recall of information and confidence in delivering the guidance to women; (2) identify barriers to provision; (3) identify the ways in which midwives provide this information to women. Registered Midwives practicing in England completed an online questionnaire. Questions included those on what information they provided and their confidence in delivering it, the ways they provided information on foods to avoid/limit, their recall of some of the guidance, and what resources they used. Ethics approval was given by the University of Bristol. More than 10% of midwives (n = 122) were 'Not at all confident/Don't know' in providing advice about ten items, including game meat/gamebirds (42% and 43%, respectively), herbal teas (14%) and cured meats (12%). Only 32% correctly recalled overall advice on eating fish, and only 38% the advice on tinned tuna. The main barriers to provision were lack of time in appointments and lack of training. The most usual methods of disseminating information were verbal (79%) and signposting to websites (55%). Midwives were often unconfident about their ability to provide accurate guidance, and recall on items tested was frequently mistaken. Delivery of guidance by midwives on foods to avoid or limit needs to be supported by appropriate training and access to resources, and sufficient time in appointments. Further research on barriers to the delivery and implementation of the NHS guidance is needed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The National Health Service (NHS) website gives guidance for pregnant women in England on foods/drinks to avoid or limit because of microbiological, toxicological or teratogenic hazards. These include, for example, some types of soft cheeses, fish/seafood and meat products. This website and midwives are trusted sources of information for pregnant women, but the ways in which midwives can be supported to provide clear and accurate information are unknown.
AIMS OBJECTIVE
The aims were to: (1) determine midwives' accuracy of recall of information and confidence in delivering the guidance to women; (2) identify barriers to provision; (3) identify the ways in which midwives provide this information to women.
METHODS METHODS
Registered Midwives practicing in England completed an online questionnaire. Questions included those on what information they provided and their confidence in delivering it, the ways they provided information on foods to avoid/limit, their recall of some of the guidance, and what resources they used. Ethics approval was given by the University of Bristol.
RESULTS RESULTS
More than 10% of midwives (n = 122) were 'Not at all confident/Don't know' in providing advice about ten items, including game meat/gamebirds (42% and 43%, respectively), herbal teas (14%) and cured meats (12%). Only 32% correctly recalled overall advice on eating fish, and only 38% the advice on tinned tuna. The main barriers to provision were lack of time in appointments and lack of training. The most usual methods of disseminating information were verbal (79%) and signposting to websites (55%).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Midwives were often unconfident about their ability to provide accurate guidance, and recall on items tested was frequently mistaken. Delivery of guidance by midwives on foods to avoid or limit needs to be supported by appropriate training and access to resources, and sufficient time in appointments. Further research on barriers to the delivery and implementation of the NHS guidance is needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36890490
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05441-8
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-05441-8
pmc: PMC9993745
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

152

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/T010010/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Matern Child Health J. 2014 Dec;18(10):2465-78
pubmed: 24748213
MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2011 Nov-Dec;36(6):381-6
pubmed: 22019918
Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Jun;17(2):237-51
pubmed: 12787550
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Jun;57(3):315-322
pubmed: 27624518
Matern Child Nutr. 2020 Apr;16(2):e12916
pubmed: 31793249
Ther Adv Reprod Health. 2021 Aug 6;15:26334941211031866
pubmed: 34396131
BMJ. 2009 Feb 12;338:b481
pubmed: 19213768
Matern Child Health J. 2004 Sep;8(3):149-62
pubmed: 15499871
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 26;5(4):e10315
pubmed: 20436670
Midwifery. 2011 Feb;27(1):80-6
pubmed: 19782445
Nutrients. 2019 Mar 22;11(3):
pubmed: 30909386
PLoS One. 2014 May 15;9(5):e97775
pubmed: 24830795
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Dec;34(23):4000-4004
pubmed: 31851562
J R Soc Promot Health. 2005 Sep;125(5):216-20
pubmed: 16220735
Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2019 Dec;151:14-36
pubmed: 31739098
Nutrients. 2018 Aug 08;10(8):
pubmed: 30096771
Can Fam Physician. 2012 Oct;58(10):1106-12
pubmed: 23064922
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016 Aug;29(4):418-26
pubmed: 26693662
J Nutr. 2009 Oct;139(10):1956-63
pubmed: 19710161
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;23(5):446-53
pubmed: 19689495
Public Health Nutr. 2014 May;17(5):1125-9
pubmed: 23531459
Nurs Res Pract. 2017;2017:7698510
pubmed: 28751991
Curr Opin Pediatr. 2008 Apr;20(2):172-7
pubmed: 18332714
Epidemiol Infect. 2015 Jan;143(2):249-56
pubmed: 24650375
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Nov;33(8):814-6
pubmed: 24219720

Auteurs

Lucy Beasant (L)

Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Jenny Ingram (J)

Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Rachel Tonks (R)

School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.

Caroline M Taylor (CM)

Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. Caroline.m.taylor@bristol.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH