Skip to main content
Public Health Nutrition logoLink to Public Health Nutrition
. 2019 Jan 9;22(6):1066–1074. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018003385

Relationships between stress, demographics and dietary intake behaviours among low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity

Mei-Wei Chang 1,*, Alai Tan 1, Jonathan Schaffir 2
PMCID: PMC10260642  PMID: 30621807

Abstract

Objective

To identify demographic risk factors associated with high stress and examine the relationships between levels of stress, demographics and dietary fat, fruit and vegetable intakes in low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity.

Design

A cross-sectional study.

Setting

Participants were recruited from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children in Michigan, USA.

Participants

Participants (n 353) were non-Hispanic Black (black) or White (white).

Results

Women aged 35 years or older (OR=4·09; 95% CI 1·45, 11·51) and who had high school or less education (OR=1·88; 95% CI 1·22, 2·89) or were unemployed (OR=1·89; 95% CI 1·15, 3·12) were significantly more likely to report high stress than women who were younger, had at least some college education or were employed/homemakers. However, race and smoking status were not associated with level of stress. Women with high stress reported significantly lower fruit and vegetable intakes but not fat intake than women with low stress. Women aged 35 years or older reported significantly higher vegetable but not fat or fruit intake than women who were 18–24 years old. Black women reported significantly higher fat but not fruit or vegetable intake than white women. Education, employment and smoking status were not significantly associated with dietary intake of fat, fruits and vegetables.

Conclusions

Nutrition counselling on reducing fat and increasing fruit and vegetable intakes may consider targeting women who are black or younger or who report high stress, respectively.

Keywords: Low-income, Pregnant women, Stress, Fat intake, Fruit and vegetable intake, Obesity


In the USA, the prevalence of overweight and obesity is high in low-income women at childbearing age (50%)( 1 ). About 65–85% of women with overweight or obesity, especially those with low income, experience excessive gestational weight gain( 2 , 3 ), defined as greater than the Institute of Medicine recommendations for pregnancy weight gain( 4 ). Excessive gestational weight gain increases the risk of numerous adverse maternal (e.g. gestational hypertension and gestational diabetes)( 5 ) and birth outcomes (e.g. large for gestational age)( 6 ). Excessive gestational weight gain is also associated with less healthy eating( 7 9 ), which has been linked to high levels of perceived psychosocial stress (high stress) in non-pregnant women( 10 , 11 ).

High prenatal maternal stress (‘high stress’ hereafter) is highly prevalent in low-income pregnant women( 12 , 13 ) and has detrimental effects on health outcomes. High stress is strongly associated with reduced birth weight( 14 16 ), small for gestational age( 17 ), preterm birth( 16 , 18 , 19 ) and a variety of negative effects on fetal and early childhood development( 20 , 21 ). Fortunately, high stress is a potentially modifiable risk factor for adverse birth and child health outcomes and may be reduced through stress management. Therefore, it is critically important to identify demographic risk factors related to high stress so that stress management interventions can focus on those at risk. To our knowledge, four studies of pregnant women with all body sizes and income levels have examined the relationships between stress and demographics (e.g. age, race, education). Results of these studies have been inconsistent( 12 , 13 , 22 24 ). Such relationships also remain a gap of knowledge in low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity.

As with stress, dietary intake during pregnancy plays an important role in maternal health outcomes. Compared with pregnant women who did not follow a prudent diet (e.g. diet low in fat and high in fruits and vegetables), pregnant women who followed such a diet had a lower risk of gestational diabetes, especially for those with overweight or obesity before pregnancy( 25 , 26 ). Similarly, following a Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet (diet low in fat and high in fruits, vegetables and whole grains) improved pregnant women’s blood glucose tolerance and lipid profile( 27 ). When examining a specific food group in relation to maternal health outcomes, researchers found that higher fat intake was associated with increased risk of impaired glucose tolerance and gestational diabetes( 28 ). Also, increased vegetable intake was associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes( 29 ) and pre-eclampsia( 30 ).

Prenatal maternal dietary intake affects birth and offspring’s health outcomes. While some studies found that a Western diet (diet high in saturated fat and red meats but low in fruits and vegetables) increased the risk of small for gestational age, low birth weight( 31 ) and preterm birth( 32 ), other studies found that a Mediterranean diet (diet low in saturated fat and high in olive oil, fruits and vegetables) decreased risk of small for gestational age( 33 ) and preterm birth, especially for women with overweight or obesity prior to pregnancy( 34 36 ). Instead of investigating a dietary pattern, many studies examined the relationships between specific food groups (fat, fruit and vegetable intakes) and birth outcomes. Studies found that high fat intake during pregnancy was associated with increased neonatal gut microbiome, which is associated with obesity( 37 ) and increased BMI and waist circumferences in offspring( 38 ). Other studies reported that lower fruit and vegetable intake increased risk of small for gestational age( 39 ) and having a child with sporadic retinoblastoma( 40 ). Increased fruit and vegetable intake, however, may reduce the risk of small for gestational age( 41 ).

Our review of the literature has shown that stress( 14 21 ) and maternal dietary intake during pregnancy( 25 30 ) affect maternal, birth and subsequent child health outcomes( 38 , 40 ). A recent systematic review on the relationship between stress and nutrition during pregnancy concluded that high stress was associated with a less healthy dietary intake (e.g. eating foods high in fat and sugar), especially for those with overweight or obesity before pregnancy. The review also suggested that more research is needed to examine the relationship between stress and dietary intake in pregnant women, because of the paucity of research conducted( 42 ). Similarly, the relationships between demographics and dietary intake in pregnant women remain under investigation. To promote maternal, birth and child health outcomes, it is critically important to identify the relationships between stress, demographics and dietary intake behaviours so that clinicians and researchers can tailor stress and/or nutrition counselling to specific subgroups of women. We therefore conducted a secondary analysis to identify demographic risk factors associated with high stress. We also examined the relationships between level of stress, demographics and dietary fat, fruit and vegetable intakes in low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity.

Methods

Setting and participants

Participants were low-income pregnant women with pre-pregnancy BMI≥25·0 kg/m2 calculated using self-reported height and weight. Also, participants were non-Hispanic Black (‘black’ hereafter) or non-Hispanic White (‘white’ hereafter), aged 18years or older, and English speakers. Women were recruited via in-person invitation from four local Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) agencies in Michigan, USA. A detailed description of study participants and settings has been published elsewhere( 43 ). This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Measures

Demographics

Participants completed a pencil-and-paper survey while waiting for their WIC appointments. Demographic information included age, previous pregnancies (gravidity), race/ethnicity, education, employment and smoking status. Participants were also asked about their gestational age calculated using self-reported last menstrual period and due date.

Stress

The Perceived Stress Scale (nine items) with established validity and reliability was used to measure stress( 44 ). Participants were asked about their perception of stressful life situations in the past month. Responses to each item were rated on a 4-point scale (1=‘rarely or never’, 2=‘sometimes’, 3=‘often’ and 4=‘usually or always’). Responses to the nine items were averaged to create a stress score with a higher score indicating perceived higher stress. We used a mean value of 3 as a cut-off value for high v. low stress.

Fat, fruit and vegetable intakes

A Rapid Food Screener was used to measure frequency of fat (seventeen items), fruit (two items) and vegetable intake (five items)( 45 ). This survey has established predictive validity assessed by comparison to a full FFQ (Spearman correlation coefficient (r)=0·69 for total fat intake, r=0·72 for saturated fat, r=0·71 for fruit and vegetable servings, r=0·62 for dietary fibre). Participants were asked about frequency of fat intake (e.g. hamburgers, fried chicken, hot dogs, pizza, French fries, ice cream) and frequency of fruit (e.g. fruit juice) and vegetable (e.g. vegetable soup, salad) intake in the past month. Responses to each fat intake item were rated on a 5-point scale that ranged from 0 (‘one time per month or less’) to 4 (‘five or more times per week’). We summed seventeen items to create a fat intake score that ranged from 0 to 68 with a higher score indicating higher frequency of fat intake. Responses to each fruit and vegetable intake item were rated on a 6-point scale that ranged from 0 (‘less than one time per week’) to 5 (‘two or more times a day’). Responses to fruit intake items were summed to create a score that ranged from 0 to 10 with a higher score indicating higher frequency of fruit intake. Responses to vegetable intake items were summed to create a score that ranged from 0 to 25 with a higher score indicating higher frequency of vegetable intake. For brevity, in the remainder of the paper we refer to frequency of fat intake as ‘fat intake’ and frequency of fruit and vegetable intake as ‘fruit and vegetable intake’.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the sample characteristics as well as the proportion of women reporting high stress and the distribution (mean and sd) of measures on fat, fruit and vegetable intakes, stratified by sample characteristics. The χ 2 test was used to examine the bivariate associations of sample characteristics with prevalence of high stress. ANOVA was used to examine the bivariate associations of sample characteristics with fat, fruit and vegetable intakes. In addition to statistical significance, we reported effect sizes of post hoc between-group comparisons from the bivariate tests using OR for the binary outcome (stress, high v. low) and Cohen’s d for continuous outcomes (fat, fruit and vegetable intakes). We used multiple linear regression models to examine the adjusted relationships between levels of stress and demographics with dietary fat, fruit and vegetable intakes. The adjusted covariates in the multiple linear regression models were variables significantly associated with either stress or dietary intake in the bivariate tests, including trimester, gravidity, age, race, education, employment and smoking status. The statistical software package SAS version 9.4 was used for all analyses.

Results

The sample consisted of 353 pregnant women with overweight or obesity (Table 1). The mean age of the study sample was 25·7 (sd 5·5) years. The mean pre-pregnancy BMI was 32·4 (sd 6·1) kg/m2. Participants were evenly divided among three trimesters. Most women were multigravida, under 35 years old, white, educated beyond high school, employed full- or part-time, non-smokers and obese.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the sample of low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity (n 353) recruited from four local Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children agencies in Michigan, USA, May–August 2010

Characteristic n %
Trimester
1st 124 35·1
2nd 121 34·3
Primigravida
Yes 114 32·3
No 239 67·7
Age (years)
18–24 173 49·0
25–34 157 44·5
35–46 23 6·5
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White 203 57·5
Non-Hispanic Black 150 42·5
Education
8th grade or less 5 1·4
Some high school 46 13·0
High-school graduate 87 24·6
Some college or technical school 176 49·9
College graduate or higher 39 11·0
Employment status
Full-time 57 16·1
Part-time 71 20·1
Unemployed 117 33·1
Homemaker 43 12·2
Self-employed 11 3·1
Student 43 12·2
Other 11 3·1
Smoking status
Never smoked 168 47·6
Smoked, but quit 136 38·5
Smoker 49 13·9
BMI
Overweight (25·0–29·9 kg/m2) 151 42·8
Mild obese (30·0–34·9 kg/m2) 109 30·9
Moderate obese (35·0–39·9 kg/m2) 50 14·2
Severe obese (≥40·0 kg/m2) 43 12·2

Descriptive analysis was performed.

Table 2 shows demographic risk factors associated with high stress. Of the sample, 45% reported high stress. Women who were at least 35 years old (OR=4·09; 95% CI 1·45, 11·51), had high school or less education (OR=1·88; 95% CI 1·22, 2·89) or were unemployed (OR=1·89, 95% CI 1·15, 3·12) were significantly more likely to report high stress than women who were younger, had at least some college education or were employed/homemakers. No significant relationships were found between race, smoking status and stress.

Table 2.

Subgroups of low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity and with high stress (n 353) recruited from four local Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children agencies in Michigan, USA, May–August 2010

Characteristic High stress (%) OR of having high stress 95 % CI P value
All participants 44·6
Age (years) 0·006
18–24 47·4 Reference
25–34 42·7 0·85 0·55, 1·31
35–46 78·3 4·09 1·45, 11·51
Race/ethnicity 0·455
Non-Hispanic White 45·5 Reference
Non-Hispanic Black 49·7 1·18 0·77, 1·79
Education 0·005
Some college/technical school or higher 40·9 Reference
High-school graduate or less 57·4 1·88 1·22, 2·89
Employment status 0·005
Employed 43·5 Reference
Unemployed 59·5 1·89 1·15, 3·12
Other (student/homemaker/other) 38·1 0·81 0·48, 1·38
Smoking status 0·903
Never smoked 46·1 Reference
Smoked, but quit 48·1 1·08 0·69, 1·70
Smoker 49·0 1·14 0·60, 1·15

Descriptive analysis and χ 2 tests were performed. The cut-offs are OR of 1·68, 3·47 and 6·71 for small, medium and large effect size, respectively( 81 ).

Table 3 summarizes mean fat, fruit and vegetable intakes by level of stress and sample characteristics and their bivariate associations. Table 4 presents the adjusted relationships of level of stress and demographics with dietary intakes of fat, fruits and vegetables.

Table 3.

Mean dietary intakes of fat, fruits and vegetables by level of stress and sample characteristics of the low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity (n 353) recruited from four local Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children agencies in Michigan, USA, May–August 2010

Fat (range 0–68) Fruit (range 0–10) Vegetable (range 0–25)
Characteristic Mean sd Cohen’s d P value Mean sd Cohen’s d P value Mean sd Cohen’s d P value
All participants 24·4 10·4 5·5 2·5 7·4 4·5
Stress 0·760 0·012 0·017
Low 24·2 10·2 Reference 5·8 2·5 Reference 7·9 4·9 Reference
High 24·6 10·7 0·04 5·2 2·6 0·24 6·8 3·9 0·25
Age (years) 0·240 0·499 0·003
18–24 23·6 12·0 Reference 5·4 2·6 Reference 6·8 4·7 Reference
25–34 24·9 8·6 0·12 5·6 2·5 0·08 7·7 4·1 0·20
35–46 26·9 8·9 0·31 6·0 2·6 0·23 9·9 4·3 0·69
Race/ethnicity <0·001 0·052 0·171
Non-Hispanic White 22·3 8·9 Reference 5·3 2·4 Reference 7·1 4·1 Reference
Non-Hispanic Black 27·2 11·6 0·47 5·8 2·6 0·20 7·8 4·8 0·16
Education 0·689 0·838 0·213
High-school graduate or less 24·1 10·4 Reference 5·5 2·6 Reference 7·0 4·8 Reference
Some college/technical school or higher 24·6 10·5 0·05 5·5 2·5 0·00 7·6 4·2 0·13
Employment status 0·143 0·719 0·137
Employed 24·8 10·2 Reference 5·4 2·5 Reference 7·8 4·5 Reference
Unemployed 25·3 9·2 0·05 5·4 2·6 0·00 6·7 3·9 0·26
Other (student/homemaker/other) 22·7 12·0 0·19 5·7 2·5 0·12 7·7 4·9 0·02
Smoking status 0·060 0·691 0·516
Never smoked 23·0 11·3 Reference 5·4 2·6 Reference 7·1 4·5 Reference
Smoked, but quit 25·7 9·4 0·26 5·7 2·5 0·12 7·7 4·5 0·13
Smoker 25·6 9·6 0·25 5·4 2·5 0·00 7·6 4·1 0·12

Descriptive analysis, t tests and ANOVA were performed. The P value indicates the overall significance of the bivariate association between dietary intake and sample characteristics (e.g. age and fat intake) using the t test for dichotomous characteristics (stress, race/ethnicity and education) and ANOVA (age, employment status and smoking status). The cut-offs are Cohen’s d of 0·2, 0·5 and 0·8 for small, medium and large effect size, respectively( 82 ).

Table 4.

Relationships of level of stress and demographics with dietary intakes of fat, fruits and vegetables, adjusting for covariates using multiple linear regression models, among the low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity (n 353) recruited from four local Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children agencies in Michigan, USA, May–August 2010

Fat Fruits Vegetables
Characteristic Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
Stress
Low Reference Reference Reference
High −0·10 1·11 −0·74** 0·28 −1·24* 0·48
Age (years)
18–24 Reference Reference Reference
25–34 1·99 1·20 0·18 0·30 0·87 0·52
35–46 3·65 2·35 0·87 0·58 3·25** 1·01
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White Reference Reference Reference
Non-Hispanic Black 5·36*** 1·17 0·57 0·29 1·06* 0·51
Education
High-school graduate or less Reference Reference Reference
Some college/technical school or higher 1·28 1·20 0·09 0·30 0·24 0·52
Employment status
Employed Reference Reference Reference
Unemployed 0·92 1·33 0·18 0·33 −0·70 0·58
Other (student/homemaker/other) −1·00 1·37 0·33 0·34 0·04 0·59
Smoking status
Never smoked Reference Reference Reference
Smoked, but quit 2·40* 1·18 0·25 0·29 0·58 0·51
Smoker 4·14* 1·72 0·23 0·43 0·79 0·74

Multiple linear regression modelling was performed. Covariates included in the model were trimester, gravidity, age, race, education, employment and smoking status.

*P<0·05, **P<0·01, ***P<0·001.

Levels of stress

There was no relationship between level of stress and fat intake. However, women with high stress consumed significantly less fruits (P=0·01) and vegetables (P=0·02) than women with low stress, with effect sizes of d=0·24 and 0·25, respectively, for the between-group differences (Table 3). The significant relationships were sustained after adjusting for covariates (trimester, gravidity, age, race, education, employment and smoking status) using multiple linear regression models (Table 4).

Age

While no statistically significant relationship was found between age and fat and fruit intakes, women aged 35 years or older reported a significant higher vegetable intake (P=0·003) than women aged 24 years or younger, with an effect size of d=0·69 for the between-group difference (Table 3). The significant relationship between age and vegetable intake was sustained after adjusting for covariates (Table 4).

Race/ethnicity

Black women were more likely to report higher fat (P<0·001) but not fruit or vegetable intake than white women in unadjusted analyses, with d=0·47 for the between-group difference in fat intake (Table 3). The significant relationship between race and fat intake was sustained in the adjusted analyses (Table 4).

Education, employment status and smoking status

Education, employment status and smoking status were not associated with fat, fruit and vegetable intakes in either unadjusted (Table 3) or adjusted (Table 4) analyses.

Discussion

Our first objective was to identify demographic risk factors associated with high stress in low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity. Our results showed that nearly half of these pregnant women reported high stress. This finding is of concern because high stress impairs executive function (a mental process that enables individuals to coordinate thought, action and emotion to achieve positive health outcomes)( 46 ). Executive function deficits are associated with increased high fat intake( 47 ), snacking( 48 ), unhealthy eating( 49 , 50 ), overeating( 51 54 ), weight gain( 50 , 55 ) and obesity( 49 , 56 58 ). Our results also showed that older age, lower education and unemployment were associated with higher risk of stress. Although the associations were of small to medium effect sizes (OR=1·88–4·09), they translated to the clinical meaningful difference that a 15–30% higher proportion of these women reported high stress. There are multiple possible explanations for the three identified demographic risk factors. First, pregnant women aged 35 years or older may experience stress due to their awareness of risks related to their age, namely miscarriage, gestational disorders and labour complications( 59 , 60 ). Women with lower education may have fewer positive coping skills, which is associated with less resilience to stress( 61 , 62 ). Becoming unemployed decreases income, which is associated with less resilience to stress( 62 ). The lack of racial differences in the study may be explained by the fact that, regardless of race, our study participants were already under stress due to their status of having low income and being pregnant( 63 , 64 ).

The findings of our first objective are consistent with findings of some studies( 22 24 ), yet disagree with the findings of others( 12 , 13 , 23 , 24 ). The discrepancies between our findings and others may be explained by differences in study populations and methodology. While we studied only black or white low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity, other studies focused on pregnant women with racially diverse backgrounds( 13 , 24 ), highly educated white women (85%)( 22 ), only Latinas( 12 ) or African Americans( 23 ). The methodology differences include the instrument used to measure stress and the cut-off value to dichotomize high v. low stress. While other researchers have used the Prenatal Psychosocial Profile Stress Scale( 24 ) or the Kessler Distress Scale( 13 ) to measure stress, our study and two other studies utilized the Perceived Stress Scale( 12 , 23 ). While we used 3·0 as a cut-off value to quantify high v. low stress, other studies either used a cut-off value of 2·1( 12 ) or did not report the cut-off value used( 23 ).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes that psychosocial factors (e.g. stress, depression, intimate partner violence) increase the risk of perinatal depression and screening for those factors may improve maternal health outcomes( 65 ). We have identified subgroups of women at high risk of stress. Therefore, obstetricians and midwives (or clinicians) may consider screening stress in pregnant women with low income and overweight or obesity, especially those who are least 35 years old, have a high school or less education or are unemployed, by asking a single question: ‘How do you rate your current stress level – low or high?’( 66 ) Then, they may consider further screening for depression in those who self-report high stress, for two reasons. First, high stress is strongly associated with depression( 67 ). To our knowledge, currently there are limited or no services available for those who solely report high stress; however, there are mental health services available for those who report more depressive symptoms. Intimate partner violence is associated with high stress( 68 ). Clinicians may consider screening for intimate partner violence by asking two questions privately: ‘Do you feel unsafe where you live?’ and ‘In the past year, has anyone hit you or tried to hurt you?’( 66 ), then providing appropriate resources. Other approaches that clinicians may take for women identified as having high stress would be to encourage them to attend their scheduled referral appointments, provide lists of community resources (e.g. food pantry, food bank) and refer them to free clinics for other health issues as needed. Also, clinicians may consider suggesting women with high stress to practise or engage in mindfulness exercise (e.g. meditation, mindfulness breathing and yoga), a potential effective approach to reduce stress in pregnant women( 69 72 ).

Our second objective was to examine the relationships between level of stress, demographics and dietary fat, fruit and vegetable intakes. Our results revealed that high stress was not associated with fat intake, but women with high stress reported lower fruit (d=0·24) and vegetable intakes (d=0·25) than women with low stress even after adjusting for covariates. It is possible that our study participants tried to reduce high-fat food intake (e.g. fried chicken, lunch meats and hamburgers that were measured in our survey) for the good health of their fetus regardless of their stress level( 73 ). However, increasing fruit and vegetable intakes might be difficult when under high stress( 74 ). Our finding on the relationship between stress and dietary intake supported findings of a prior study( 75 ) but contradicted another study showing a positive relationship between stress and fat intake but no relationship between stress and fruit and vegetable intake( 22 ). The inconsistent findings may be due to a difference in target populations. While the prior study included well-educated, middle-class women with all body sizes(22), we studied low-income women with overweight or obesity.

In terms of examining the relationships between demographic characteristics and dietary intakes of fat, fruits and vegetables, we found that women with older age were likely to report higher vegetable intake (d=0·69). Also, black women reported higher fat intake (d=0·47) than white women even after adjusting for covariates, which may relate to the availability of high-fat foods in their environments. Previous studies have shown that more fast-food restaurants( 76 ) but fewer chain supermarkets( 77 ) are located in black neighbourhoods than white neighbourhoods. The significant associations were of medium effect size (d=0·47–0·69). The dietary intakes of fat, fruits and vegetables were measured by items each scored 0 (‘less than one time per week’) to 5 (‘two or more times a day’). Therefore, the effect sizes are not translatable to clinically meaningful measures in actual amount of intake. Future studies using more precise dietary intake measures (e.g. 24h dietary recall or FFQ) are needed to further quantify the associations and related clinical meanings. The lack of differences based on education, employment and smoking status might be explained by the low income of our cohort. Prior studies have shown that being low income has a negative impact on individuals’ dietary choices, which may have prevented low-income adults from following nutritional recommendations for a healthy diet( 78 80 ). Comparing results of our study regarding the relationships between demographics and intakes of fat, fruits and vegetables is challenging, because this is one of few studies investigating the relationship. Nevertheless, our findings may provide potentially useful information to clinicians working with low-income pregnant women with a higher BMI. Since age and race are typically reported during a prenatal visit, clinicians may consider providing targeted nutrition education that focuses on increasing vegetable intake in younger women and reducing fat intake in black women to potentially improve maternal and birth outcomes.

There are several limitations to the current study. First, the cross-sectional design precludes declarations of causal relationships. Our data, including the assessment of stress and dietary intake, were based on self-reported values and may therefore be subject to recall bias. Also, the Rapid Food Screener that we used can only assess frequency of fat, fruit and vegetable intake; we were limited in our ability to evaluate whether our participants met dietary guidelines. However, the Rapid Food Screener has been widely used because of its practicality to assess nutrition status in community settings. Moreover, the study included only black and white English-speaking pregnant women with overweight or obesity who were recruited from Michigan. Thus, our sample may not represent the full diversity of low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity in all geographic locations.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that stress is likely to be higher in women who are older, less educated and unemployed. Stress was negatively associated with fruit and vegetable intake and age was positively associated with vegetable intake. Finally, black race was associated with higher fat intake. Clinicians may consider targeted nutrition counselling on reducing fat intake for women who are black and increasing fruit and vegetable intake for women who are younger or report high stress. Finally, future longitudinal studies of low-income pregnant women with overweight or obesity are needed to confirm our study findings.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Conflict of interest: None of the authors has a conflict of interest. Authorship: M.-W.C. designed and carried out the study. A.T. conducted the analysis; M.-W.C., A.T. and J.S. participated in formulating the research questions and interpreting findings. M.-W.C. and A.T. drafted and critically revised the manuscript. J.S. contributed to critical revision of the manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

References

  • 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013) Eligibility and enrollment in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) – 27 states and New York City, 2007–2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62, 189–193. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Gould Rothberg BE, Magriples U, Kershaw TS et al. (2011) Gestational weight gain and subsequent postpartum weight loss among young, low-income, ethnic minority women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204, 52.e51–52.e11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Ferrari RM & Siega-Riz AM (2013) Provider advice about pregnancy weight gain and adequacy of weight gain. Matern Child Health J 17, 256–264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Institute of Medicine (2009) Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexaming the Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; available at http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2009/weight-gain-during-pregnancy-reexamining-the-guidelines.aspx
  • 5. Koebnick C, Smith N, Huang K et al. (2012) The prevalence of obesity and obesity-related health conditions in a large, multiethnic cohort of young adults in California. Ann Epidemiol 22, 609–616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Kabali C & Werler MM (2007) Pre-pregnant body mass index, weight gain and the risk of delivering large babies among non-diabetic mothers. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 97, 100–104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Olson CM, Strawderman MS, Hinton PS et al. (2003) Gestational weight gain and postpartum behaviors associated with weight change from early pregnancy to 1 y postpartum. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 27, 117–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Ostbye T, Peterson BL, Krause KM et al. (2012) Predictors of postpartum weight change among overweight and obese women: results from the Active Mothers Postpartum study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 21, 215–222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Stuebe AM, Oken E & Gillman MW (2009) Associations of diet and physical activity during pregnancy with risk for excessive gestational weight gain. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201, 58.e1–58.e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Obel C, Hedegaard M, Henriksen TB et al. (2005) Stress and salivary cortisol during pregnancy. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30, 647–656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Epel ES, McEwen B, Seeman T et al. (2000) Stress and body shape: stress-induced cortisol secretion is consistently greater among women with central fat. Psychosom Med 62, 623–632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Silveira ML, Pekow PS, Dole N et al. (2013) Correlates of high perceived stress among pregnant Hispanic women in Western Massachusetts. Matern Child Health J 17, 1138–1150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Glasheen C, Colpe L, Hoffman V et al. (2015) Prevalence of serious psychological distress and mental health treatment in a national sample of pregnant and postpartum women. Matern Child Health J 19, 204–216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Su Q, Zhang H, Zhang Y et al. (2015) Maternal stress in gestation: birth outcomes and stress-related hormone response of the neonates. Pediatr Neonatol 56, 376–381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Littleton HL, Bye K, Buck K et al. (2010) Psychosocial stress during pregnancy and perinatal outcomes: a meta-analytic review. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 31, 219–228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Nkansah-Amankra S, Luchok KJ, Hussey JR et al. (2010) Effects of maternal stress on low birth weight and preterm birth outcomes across neighborhoods of South Carolina, 2000–2003. Matern Child Health J 14, 215–226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Khashan AS, Everard C, McCowan LM et al. (2014) Second-trimester maternal distress increases the risk of small for gestational age. Psychol Med 44, 2799–2810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. McDonald SW, Kingston D, Bayrampour H et al. (2014) Cumulative psychosocial stress, coping resources, and preterm birth. Arch Womens Ment Health 17, 559–568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Ghosh JK, Wilhelm MH, Dunkel-Schetter C et al. (2010) Paternal support and preterm birth, and the moderation of effects of chronic stress: a study in Los Angeles county mothers. Arch Womens Ment Health 13, 327–338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Dunkel Schetter C (2011) Psychological science on pregnancy: stress processes, biopsychosocial models, and emerging research issues. Annu Rev Psychol 62, 531–558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Anhalt K, Telzrow CF & Brown CL (2007) Maternal stress and emotional status during the perinatal period and childhood adjustment. Sch Psychol Q 22, 74–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Hurley KM, Caulfield LE, Sacco LM et al. (2005) Psychosocial influences in dietary patterns during pregnancy. J Am Diet Assoc 105, 963–966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Stancil TR, Hertz-Picciotto I, Schramm M et al. (2000) Stress and pregnancy among African-American women. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 14, 127–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Woods SM, Melville JL, Guo Y et al. (2010) Psychosocial stress during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202, 61.e1–61.e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Zhang C, Schulze MB, Solomon CG et al. (2006) A prospective study of dietary patterns, meat intake and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 49, 2604–2613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Tryggvadottir EA, Medek H, Birgisdottir BE et al. (2016) Association between healthy maternal dietary pattern and risk for gestational diabetes mellitus. Eur J Clin Nutr 70, 237–242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Asemi Z, Tabassi Z, Samimi M et al. (2013) Favourable effects of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet on glucose tolerance and lipid profiles in gestational diabetes: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Nutr 109, 2024–2030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Saldana TM, Siega-Riz AM & Adair LS (2004) Effect of macronutrient intake on the development of glucose intolerance during pregnancy. Am J Clin Nutr 79, 479–486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. He JR, Yuan MY, Chen NN et al. (2015) Maternal dietary patterns and gestational diabetes mellitus: a large prospective cohort study in China. Br J Nutr 113, 1292–1300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Brantsaeter AL, Haugen M, Samuelsen SO et al. (2009) A dietary pattern characterized by high intake of vegetables, fruits, and vegetable oils is associated with reduced risk of preeclampsia in nulliparous pregnant Norwegian women. J Nutr 139, 1162–1168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Knudsen VK, Orozova-Bekkevold IM, Mikkelsen TB et al. (2008) Major dietary patterns in pregnancy and fetal growth. Eur J Clin Nutr 62, 463–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Rasmussen MA, Maslova E, Halldorsson TI et al. (2014) Characterization of dietary patterns in the Danish national birth cohort in relation to preterm birth. PLoS One 9, e93644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Okubo H, Miyake Y, Sasaki S et al. (2012) Maternal dietary patterns in pregnancy and fetal growth in Japan: the Osaka Maternal and Child Health Study. Br J Nutr 107, 1526–1533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Mikkelsen TB, Osterdal ML, Knudsen VK et al. (2008) Association between a Mediterranean-type diet and risk of preterm birth among Danish women: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87, 325–330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Saunders L, Guldner L, Costet N et al. (2014) Effect of a Mediterranean diet during pregnancy on fetal growth and preterm delivery: results from a French Caribbean Mother–Child Cohort Study (TIMOUN). Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 28, 235–244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Englund-Ogge L, Brantsaeter AL, Sengpiel V et al. (2014) Maternal dietary patterns and preterm delivery: results from large prospective cohort study. BMJ 348, g1446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Chu DM, Antony KM, Ma J et al. (2016) The early infant gut microbiome varies in association with a maternal high-fat diet. Genome Med 8, 77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Maslova E, Rytter D, Bech BH et al. (2016) Maternal intake of fat in pregnancy and offspring metabolic health – a prospective study with 20 years of follow-up. Clin Nutr 35, 475–483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Ramon R, Ballester F, Iniguez C et al. (2009) Vegetable but not fruit intake during pregnancy is associated with newborn anthropometric measures. J Nutr 139, 561–567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Orjuela MA, Titievsky L, Liu X et al. (2005) Fruit and vegetable intake during pregnancy and risk for development of sporadic retinoblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14, 1433–1440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Murphy MM, Stettler N, Smith KM et al. (2014) Associations of consumption of fruits and vegetables during pregnancy with infant birth weight or small for gestational age births: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Womens Health 6, 899–912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Lindsay KL, Buss C, Wadhwa PD et al. (2017) The interplay between maternal nutrition and stress during pregnancy: issues and considerations. Ann Nutr Metab 70, 191–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Chang MW, Brown R, Nitzke S et al. (2015) Stress, sleep, depression and dietary intakes among low-income overweight and obese pregnant women. Matern Child Health J 19, 1047–1059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Cohen S, Kamarck T & Mermelstein R (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 24, 385–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Block G, Gillespie C, Rosenbaum EH et al. (2000) A rapid food screener to assess fat and fruit and vegetable intake. Am J Prev Med 18, 284–288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Diamond A (2013) Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol 64, 135–168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Hall PA (2012) Executive control resources and frequency of fatty food consumption: findings from an age-stratified community sample. Health Psychol 31, 235–241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Powell DJ, McMinn D & Allan JL (2017) Does real time variability in inhibitory control drive snacking behavior? An intensive longitudinal study. Health Psychol 36, 356–364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Lavagnino L, Arnone D, Cao B et al. (2016) Inhibitory control in obesity and binge eating disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68, 714–726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Ziauddeen H, Alonso-Alonso M, Hill JO et al. (2015) Obesity and the neurocognitive basis of food reward and the control of intake. Adv Nutr 6, 474–486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Hege MA, Stingl KT, Kullmann S et al. (2015) Attentional impulsivity in binge eating disorder modulates response inhibition performance and frontal brain networks. Int J Obes (Lond) 39, 353–360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Jarmolowicz DP, Cherry JB, Reed DD et al. (2014) Robust relation between temporal discounting rates and body mass. Appetite 78, 63–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Rasmussen EB, Lawyer SR & Reilly W (2010) Percent body fat is related to delay and probability discounting for food in humans. Behav Processes 83, 23–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Schiff S, Amodio P, Testa G et al. (2016) Impulsivity toward food reward is related to BMI: evidence from intertemporal choice in obese and normal-weight individuals. Brain Cogn 110, 112–119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Nederkoorn C, Houben K, Hofmann W et al. (2010) Control yourself or just eat what you like? Weight gain over a year is predicted by an interactive effect of response inhibition and implicit preference for snack foods. Health Psychol 29, 389–393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Emery RL & Levine MD (2017) Questionnaire and behavioral task measures of impulsivity are differentially associated with body mass index: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 143, 868–902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Wu M, Brockmeyer T, Hartmann M et al. (2016) Reward-related decision making in eating and weight disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence from neuropsychological studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 61, 177–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Yang Y, Shields GS, Guo C et al. (2018) Executive function performance in obesity and overweight individuals: a meta-analysis and review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 84, 225–244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Bewley S, Davies M & Braude P (2005) Which career first? BMJ 331, 588–589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Boivin J, Rice F, Hay D et al. (2009) Associations between maternal older age, family environment and parent and child wellbeing in families using assisted reproductive techniques to conceive. Soc Sci Med 68, 1948–1955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Southwick SM, Vythilingam M & Charney DS (2005) The psychobiology of depression and resilience to stress: implications for prevention and treatment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 1, 255–291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Bonanno GA, Galea S, Bucciarelli A et al. (2007) What predicts psychological resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress. J Consult Clin Psychol 75, 671–682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Williams DR, Yan Y, Jackson JS et al. (1997) Racial differences in physical and mental health: socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. J Health Psychol 2, 335–351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Turner RJ & Avison WR (2003) Status variations in stress exposure: implications for the interpretation of research on race, socioeconomic status, and gender. J Health Soc Behav 44, 488–505. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Committee on Obstetric Practice (2015) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion no. 630. Screening for perinatal screening. Obstet Gynecol 125, 1268–1271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Lapp T (2000) ACOG addresses psychosocial screening in pregnant women. The Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women of the American College Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Am Fam Physician 62, 2701–2702. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Falconnier L & Elkin I (2008) Addressing economic stress in the treatment of depression. Am J Orthopsychiatry 78, 37–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Basile KC, Arias I, Desai S et al. (2004) The differential association of intimate partner physical, sexual, psychological, and stalking violence and posttraumatic stress symptoms in a nationally representative sample of women. J Trauma Stress 17, 413–421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Satyapriya M, Nagendra HR, Nagarathna R et al. (2009) Effect of integrated yoga on stress and heart rate variability in pregnant women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 104, 218–222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Bastani F, Hidarnia A, Kazemnejad A et al. (2005) A randomized controlled trial of the effects of applied relaxation training on reducing anxiety and perceived stress in pregnant women. J Midwifery Womens Health 50, e36–e40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Vieten C, Laraia BA, Kristeller J et al. (2018) The mindful moms training: development of a mindfulness-based intervention to reduce stress and overeating during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18, 201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Krusche A, Dymond M, Murphy SE et al. (2018) Mindfulness for pregnancy: a randomised controlled study of online mindfulness during pregnancy. Midwifery 65, 51–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Chang MW, Nitzke S, Buist D et al. (2015) I am pregnant and want to do better but I can’t: focus groups with low-income overweight and obese pregnant women. Matern Child Health J 19, 1060–1070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Chang M, Nitzke S, Guilford E et al. (2008) Motivators and barriers to healthful eating and physical activity among low-income overweight and obese mothers. J Am Diet Assoc 108, 1023–1028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Chang MW, Brown R & Nitzke S (2016) Fast food intake in relation to employment status, stress, depression, and dietary behaviors in low-income overweight and obese pregnant women. Matern Child Health J 20, 1506–1517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Block JP, Scribner RA & DeSalvo KB (2004) Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income: a geographic analysis. Am J Prev Med 27, 211–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Powell LM, Slater S, Mirtcheva D et al. (2007) Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Prev Med 44, 189–195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Cavaliere A, De Marchi E & Banterle A (2014) Healthy–unhealthy weight and time preference. Is there an association? An analysis through a consumer survey. Appetite 83, 135–143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Cavaliere A, De Marchi E & Banterle A (2018) Exploring the adherence to the Mediterranean diet and its relationship with individual lifestyle: the role of healthy behaviors, pro-environmental behaviors, income, and education. Nutrients 10, E411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Bowman SA (2006) A comparison of the socioeconomic characteristics, dietary practices, and health status of women food shoppers with different food price attitudes. Nutr Res 26, 318–324. [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Chen H, Cohen P & Chen S (2010) How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Commun Stat Simul Comput 39, 860–864. [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge Academic. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Public Health Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES