Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2024 Jan 5;4(1):e0002529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002529

Dietary intake and associated risk factors among pregnant women in Mbeya, Tanzania

Erick Killel 1, Geofrey Mchau 1, Hamida Mbilikila 1, Kaunara Azizi 1, Nyamizi Ngasa 1, Adam Hancy 1, Tedson Lukindo 1, Ramadhan Mwiru 2, Ramadhan Noor 2, Abraham Sanga 2, Patrick Codjia 2, Germana H Leyna 1,3, Ray M Masumo 1,4,*
Editor: Dickson Abanimi Amugsi5
PMCID: PMC10769095  PMID: 38180949

Abstract

Poor dietary intake among pregnant women has serious detrimental consequences for pregnancy and offspring both in developed and developing countries. This study aimed to assess dietary intake and associated risk factors among pregnant women. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Mbeya, Tanzania with a sample size of 420 pregnant women attending antenatal clinics to assess the factors associated with dietary intake. Dietary intake was assessed using a piloted questionnaire of the Prime Diet Quality Score. A tested standard questionnaire was also used to collect factors that are associated with dietary intake among pregnant women. The strengths of the associations between the dependent and independent variables were tested using the Pearson chi-square tests and the multivariate log-binomial regression method was performed to calculate the adjusted risk ratios (ARR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The study revealed that out of 420 pregnant women who participated in this study only 12.6% and 29.3% consumed at least four servings of fruits and vegetables per week respectively. Poor dietary intakes were less likely among cohabiting pregnant women [Adjusted RR 0.22 (95% CI 0.09–0.50)] and; those who reported taking Fansidar tablets during the pregnancy [Adjusted RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.31–0.96)]. Further, we found that poor dietary intakes were more likely among pregnant women who were classified as overweight and obesity by the MUAC above 33cm [Adjusted RR 3.49 (95% CI 1.10–11.06)]. The study results affirm that cohabitation and obesity affect dietary intakes among pregnant women differently compared to married women in rural settings of Tanzania. Further research is needed to investigate the social aspects that link dietary intake outcomes for developing a tailored gestational intervention to improve maternal and birth outcomes in sub-Saharan African countries.

Introduction

Poor dietary intake among pregnant women has serious detrimental consequences for pregnancy and offspring both in developed and developing countries [1]. In 2017, Pelletier and colleagues defined dietary quality as one that is hygienically safe, nutritious, balanced, and well adapted to the needs of individuals in order to prevent disease, ensure a good state of health, as well as proper development [2]. Previous studies have consistently reported that the Mediterranean diet is one of the most effective diets in reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases and overall mortality due to non-communicable diseases [3, 4]. The Mediterranean diet is characterized by a high intake of fish, olive oil, non-starchy vegetables, legumes, whole grains (cereals), fruits, and nuts, as well as a lower intake of dairy products, red and processed meat and a moderate intake of wine [3, 4]. Worldwide dietary guidelines vary and each country adapts to suit its specific needs [5, 6]. The dietary guidelines of the United Kingdom and the American 2020–2025 recommended the consumption of at least two portions of fruit and 3 portions of vegetables a day [7, 8].

A Lancet study conducted in 195 countries on the health effects of dietary risks published that in most of the countries, the intake of healthy food such as whole grains, vegetables and fruits were much less compared to unhealthy foods such as processed foods and soft drinks [5]. An epidemiological study from South Africa by Venter and Winterbach revealed a higher dietary intake of fats than the recommended among mid-adolescents [9]. Evidence emanated from Bahrain consistently reported poor consumption of healthy food items compared to unhealthy food items [10]. There are a growing number of studies on dietary intake among pregnant women in many countries, especially industrialised countries [5, 6], however, published research regarding dietary intake among pregnant women in Tanzania is minimal. While the results from studies based in other countries provide relevant information related to this subject [9], these results cannot be entirely relatable to pregnant women in Tanzania. A recently published longitudinal study in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania among pregnant women reported high consumption of green leafy vegetables and refined grains [11]. Inconsistent findings were reported in another prospective cohort study among 432 pregnant women in the rural settings of Ethiopia where the consumption of vegetables and fruits was poor and associated with a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes [12]. The research work in Tanzania [11] was performed in urban settings and may not represent the dietary intake in rural settings. The two previous National Nutrition Surveys in Tanzania, TNNS of 2014 and 2018 lack detailed information on dietary intake and diet quality [13]. Therefore, further high-quality prospective cohort studies are required in Tanzania to enhance the generalisability of the results and help inform policies and programmes.

Dietary intake among pregnant women is affected by various factors, such as socio-demographic and economic status, nutrition status, environmental, cultural, and political [1418]. Adequate dietary intake is nothing new to sub-Saharan African countries but what is of great concern is the fact that it is one of the issues on which a lot of resources have been spent over a period of time with very limited results. The current pieces of literature provide limited information on dietary intake among pregnant women in sub-Saharan African countries because the requirements that would enhance the collection and use of those data, including the use of new technology, in these countries rarely exist [19]. Hence, the present study aimed at examining dietary intake and associated risk factors among pregnant women in the Mbeya region, Tanzania. The findings of this study would be a valuable step in developing a tailored gestational intervention to improve maternal and birth outcomes in sub-Saharan African countries.

Methods

Ethics statement

The survey was approved by the Tanzania Ethics Committees i.e. the National Institute for Medical Research with the reference number SZEC-24239/R.A/V.1/151. Date of issue 12th August 2022. All eligible subjects were informed of the purpose and nature of the survey and those who agreed to participate were asked to sign a written informed consent form. Moreover, a written informed consent was obtained from the parent/guardian of each participant under 18 years of age. All procedures followed were per the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 including the confidentiality and, authors had no access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection.

Study design

A cross-sectional study was conducted among pregnant women in seven districts of Mbeya region in Tanzania. The study was carried out from 15th September to 10th December 2022.

Study area

Mbeya region has a population of 2,204,543 (1,068,615 male and 1,135,928 female) and 557,574 women of reproductive age [20]. The total deliveries in the Mbeya region in 2020 were 72,076. There are 17 hospitals, 23 health centres and 278 dispensaries, where 251 health facilities provide reproductive and child health services. This study was conducted at 42 Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) Clinics in seven districts of the Mbeya region. The selected RCH clinics in this study are estimated to provide services to approximately 1036 pregnant women [20].

Study population

All pregnant women aged between 15 to 49 years, less than 28 weeks of gestation, and who attended antenatal visits in Mbeya were invited to participate in the study. This is according to the minimal risk in research involving pregnant women and offspring [21]. A total of 574 pregnant women were invited and 420 (response rate of 73.0%) agreed to participate. The study excluded pregnant women taking medication for other reasons except malaria chemoprophylaxis plus iron and folate supplements.

Sample size and sampling procedure

A sample size (n = 420) was considered sufficient based on the Lwanga and Lemeshow formula [22]. Prior to carrying out the study, the proportion of women of reproductive age with poor dietary intake was estimated to be 45%, with a margin error of 5%, a confidence level of 95%, and a design effect of 1.5. Another 10% was added to the sample size to account for non-responses. The sampling procedure involved two steps [22], a list of 251 governmental and faith-based health facilities providing antenatal services in the Mbeya region was obtained and used in a random selection of the health facilities from each district based on probability proportional to size sampling. A total of 42 facilities from a pool of 251 were randomly selected for the survey. An additional two reserved clusters were included in the survey. Given the sampling frame of public health facilities in Mbeya, the probability proportional to size was performed to allocate the number of facilities per district for inclusion in the survey. Therefore, a total of 44 health facilities offering antenatal services located in the Mbeya region were visited and surveyed [22].

Data collection

Dietary intake assessment

Dietary intake was assessed by the Prime Diet Quality Score (PDQS) developed in the USA using a modified Prime Screen questionnaire as a means to characterize diet quality [23]. The questionnaire was first found to predict factors associated with the lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in a large population in the USA [23], and diet quality among adults in Bosnia and Herzegovina [18]. In Tanzania, Yang and colleagues employed the questionnaire in a prospective pregnancy cohort study [11]. The PDQS contains 21 food groups; 13 are healthy food and, seven are unhealthy food. The PDQS was assessed using 24-hour recalls, which reflected the feeding practice from the previous morning to the morning of the interview [11, 23, 24]. For this study, the questionnaire was translated into Kiswahili the main language in Tanzania, spoken proficiently by almost 95% of the population. In the translation process, two translators with different backgrounds independently translated the original questionnaire into Kiswahili. The IMAN project staff in the field reviewed for semantic, experiential, and conceptual equivalence to the original version. Sensitivity to culture and selection of appropriate words were considered. The Kiswahili version of the questionnaire was then given to a translator fluent in both English and Kiswahili to translate back into the original language. This translator was not shown the original English version. Lastly, all translations and the original questionnaire were given to IMAN project staff in the field in order to consolidate all the versions of the questionnaire and achieve equivalence between the original and target versions. Both the Kiswahili version and the original English version of the PDQS were administered to 20 female secondary school teachers in Dar es Salaam in two sessions separated by an interval of two weeks to evaluate the quality of the translations in terms of comprehensibility, readability and relevance on face validity and, correlations between the two administrations were calculated. However, a 30-day recall was not a part of this study which might have different comparable outcomes.

Participants were asked ‘From when you woke up yesterday till you woke up this morning did you consume the following food items: dark green leafy vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, dark orange vegetables and fruits, other vegetables, citrus fruits, other fruits, legumes, nuts and seeds, poultry, fish, whole grains, vegetable liquid oils, white roots and tubers, red meat as a main dish, processed meats, refined grains and baked products, sugar-sweetened beverages, fried foods away from home, sweets, ice cream and low-fat dairy?’ Responses were given on a 5-point likert scale; 0 = not at all, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = thrice, and 4 = fourth or more. Each occasion of food group consumption was considered as a serving. The mean number of servings was computed over the available recall days for each participant. The mean number of servings for each food group was multiplied by 7 to standardise the number of servings per week, from which points for each food group could be assigned based on whether the food was categorised as healthy or unhealthy [11, 23, 24]. Points were assigned for consumption of healthy food groups as follows: 0–1 serving/week, 0 points; 2–3 servings/week, 1 point; and ≥4 servings/week, 2 points. Scoring for unhealthy food groups was assigned as follows: 0–1 serving/week, 2 points; 2–3 servings/week, 1 point; and ≥4 servings/week, 0 points [11, 23, 24].

Demographic and socio-economic factors

The demographic factors were assessed by asking pregnant women attending antenatal services to provide the following information: Age, marital status, education level, and occupation status. Socio-economic status was assessed by household ownership of durable assets (such as ownership of a car, motorcycle, bicycle, cart, refrigerator, television, radio, etc.), housing characteristics (such as the material of dwelling floor and roof, toilet facilities, etc.), and access to basic services (such as electricity supply, source of drinking water). Household asset data uses simple questions and therefore suffers from less recall or social desirability bias.

Anthropometric measurements

Maternal nutrition status was assessed by measuring weight and height. Weight was measured by the nearest 0.1 kg with a battery-powered electronic scale (Seca, Hamburg, Germany), and height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm with a height model recommended by UNICEF. Height was measured when pregnant women were not wearing shoes or a head covering. Further, Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) assessed by MUAC tapes was used to assess the nutrition status of pregnant women [25].

Laboratory assessment

A trained nurse collected blood samples through vein puncture from consented participants. Blood samples were taken into ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and non-anticoagulated whole blood vacutainers (Becton Dickenson, NJ, USA). Approximately 6mL of venous blood sample was collected on each vacutainer and protected from light. Whole-blood vacutainers were maintained at 4–8°C for less than 2 hours before being transported to the temporary laboratories. Malaria was tested by rapid diagnostic test (SD Bioline, Rep. of Korea), and hemoglobin level was measured by HemoCue HB 201+ analyser (Hemo Cue, Angelholm, Sweden). Assessment of C-reactive protein (CRP), and alpha-1 acid glycoprotein (AGP) was performed with Roche Cobas Integra 400 Plus analyser (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, German). Hemoglobin levels <12.0 and <8.0 g/dL were used to characterise anaemia and severe anaemia, respectively. Serum C- reactive protein (CRP) and Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) values of CRP > 5.0 mg/L and AGP > 1.0 g/L respectively were characterized as high inflammatory marks [26, 27].

Data analysis

The data were analysed by using SPSS version 25. The dietary intake as dependent variable was assessed as a categorical variable splitting at the median i.e. 0 = good dietary intake and, 1 = poor dietary intake.

An asset-based approach to measuring household socio-economic status is considered an alternative to income and consumption expenditure in low-income countries. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is a method for determining wealth indices [28]. In this study, household wealth index was assessed as (1) “available and in working condition” or (0) “not available and/or not in working condition” of durable assets, housing characteristics and access to basic services. For constructing a wealth index among pregnant women in Mbeya, the first principal component was used to categorise households into two approximate group’s i.e. lowest and highest group. The strengths of the associations between the dependent and independent variables in bivariate analysis were tested using the Pearson chi-square tests because all variables were categorical. Independent variables that were significant at arbitrary levels in the bivariate analysis were selected for multivariate analysis. We based this on the Wald test with a P-value cut-off of 0.7. In multivariate analysis, Log binomial regression method were used first for adjusting confounders and second to identify independent predictors of dietary intake among the study population, and the significance level was set at 5%.

Results

Reliability

The internal consistency reliability scales were examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Test-retest reliability analysis was performed using kappa statistics and Intra class correlation coefficients (ICC). The agreement between the interviewers and the gold standard on the dietary intake assessments on the English and Kiswahili versions were Cohen’s kappa of 0.62 and 0.67 respectively. During the field, duplicate interviews were performed randomly with 20 pregnant women. Test-retest reliability of reports on the dietary intake assessment using a Kiswahili version in terms of ICC was 0.72 (95% CI 0.64–0.78). Thus, acceptable levels of intra-interviews agreement (kappa >0.60) were obtained [29].

The characteristics of the study population

Study participants had a mean age of 25.49 ± 6.37 years. Table 1 depicts the characteristics of the study population. More than half of the participants were 15–24 years old, about seventy-two percent had completed at least primary education and, 84.3% were self-employed. Five percent (n = 21) of pregnant women had Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) of above 33cm and falls in the category of overweight and obesity. Nine percent (n = 38) of pregnant women had serum C- reactive protein (CRP) above 5mg/L and, 19% (n = 80) had Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) above 1 g/L. For the construction of wealth index: One-third of the participants lived in houses with electricity; 72.0% had access to improved sources of drinking water and 65.0% were not sharing toilet facilities. The pit latrine without washable was the most common type of toilet 31.6% (n = 133). About half (51.5%) used cement as the material of the dwelling floor and 7.8% used thatch/palm leaf as material for the roof. Furthermore, less than two percent (n = 6) and 2.4% (n = 10) of the participants owned a motor vehicle and a set of television respectively (not in Table 1). Following the PCA analysis, 140 pregnant women (33.4%) fell under the category of lower socio-economic status as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Frequency distribution of the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of pregnant women in Mbeya (n = 420).

Variable Categories Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
Age group (Years) 15–19 82 19.5
20–24 133 31.6
25–29 99 23.6
35+ 106 25.2
Education No education 34 8.1
Primary 301 71.7
Secondary and above 85 20.2
Marital status Married 238 56.5
Cohabit 133 31.6
Single/ Divorced 49 11.6
Number of pregnancies Primigravida 104 24.7
Multigravida 316 75.1
Trimester of pregnancy First trimester (<12 weeks) 109 26.0
Second trimester (12–26 weeks) 311 74.0
Received of iron and folic acid supplements No 155 36.8
Yes 265 62.9
Received Fansidar (SP) during pregnancy No 204 48.5
Yes 216 51.3
Occupation status Formal employment 15 3.6
Self employed 355 84.3
Not employed 51 12.1
Household wealth Index Higher socio-economic 140 33.4
Middle socio-economic 139 33.2
lower socio-economic 140 33.4
Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) Thin (<23cm) 16 3.8
Normal (between 23 and 33cm) 383 91.2
Overweight or obesity (above 33 cm) 21 5.0
Malaria infection No 402 95.7
Yes 18 4.3
Serum C- reactive protein (CRP) CRP≤5mg/L 383 91.0
CRP>5mg/L 38 9.0
Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) AGP< = 1 g/L 341 81.0
AGP>1 g/L 80 19.0

Dietary intake and diet quality

Among 420 pregnant women who participated in the study, two hundred forty (57.2%) fell into the group of poor dietary intake. The median PDQS was 16 (the 25th and 75th percentiles were 14.0 and 18.0, respectively). Table 2 shows the patterns and distribution of dietary intake among pregnant women according to PDQS on healthy and unhealthy food shows that 57.2 of the study participants consumed more than four servings of edible vegetable liquid oil per week out of the 14 healthy foods assessed. Furthermore, the healthy foods that were less consumed per week were cruciferous vegetables (93.4%), whole citrus fruits (92.9%), and poultry (92.4%). However, refined grains and baked goods represented the highest percentage of servings consumed per week out of the six unhealthy foods assessed.

Table 2. The patterns and distribution of food groups consumption among pregnant women according to PDQS score (n = 420).

Healthy foods
Serving per week 0–1 serving/week
n (%)
2–3 servings/week
n (%)
≥4 servings/week
n (%)
 Dark leafy green vegetables 142(33.7) 156 (37.1) 123 (29.2)
 Cruciferous vegetables 393(93.4) 20(4.8) 8(1.9)
 Dark orange vegetables and fruits 263(62.5) 105(24.9) 53(12.6)
 Other vegetables 266(63.2) 93 (22.1) 62(14.7)
 Whole citrus fruits 391 (92.9) 25 (5.9) 5 (1.2)
 Other whole fruits 308(73.2) 78(18.5) 35(8.3)
 Legumes 259 (61.5) 104 (24.7) 58(13.9)
 Nuts and seeds 275(65.3) 107(25.4) 39(9.3)
 Poultry 389(92.4) 21(5.0) 11(2.6)
 Fish 277(65.8) 98(23.3) 46(10.9)
 Whole grains 324(77.0) 68(16.1) 29(6.9)
 Vegetable liquid oils 46(10.9) 134(31.8) 241(57.2)
 White roots and tubers 189(44.9) 161(38.2) 71(16.9)
 Low fat diary 349(82.9) 56(13.3) 16(3.8)
Unhealthy foods
Serving per week 0–1 serving/week
n (%)
2–3 servings/week
n (%)
≥4 servings/week
n (%)
 Red meats 311(73.9) 85(20.2) 25(5.9)
 Sweets and ice cream 349(82.9) 58 (13.8) 14 (3.3)
 Fried foods obtained away from Home 348(82.7) 65(15.4) 8(1.9)
 Processed meat 412(97.9) 8(1.9) 1(0.2)
 Refined grains and baked goods 74(17.6) 145(34.4) 202 (48.0)
 Sugar sweetened beverages 249(59.1) 146(34.7) 26(6.2)

Bivariate analysis

Table 3 depicts the bivariate analysis; poor dietary intake were significantly associated with the marital status of pregnant women, and those who received Fansidar tablets during pregnancy (p>0.05). However, the age group of pregnant women, their educational level, occupation status, household wealth index, received iron and folic acid supplements, Serum C- reactive protein (CRP) and Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) were not significantly associated with poor dietary intake and diet quality among pregnant women (p>0.05).

Table 3. Bivariate analysis on the factors associated with poor dietary quality among pregnant women in Mbeya (n = 420): Chi square test.

Variable Categories Good dietary quality Poor dietary quality P-value
% (n) % (n)
Age group (Years) 15–19 16.8 (30) 21.6 (52) 0.129
20–24 30.7 (55) 32.4 (78)
25–29 29.1 (52) 19.5 (47)
35+ 23.5 (42) 26.6 (64)
Education No education 8.3 (15) 7.9 (19) 0.696
Primary 70.6 (127) 72.6 (175)
Secondary and above 21.1 (38) 19.5 (47)
Marital status Married 70.0 (126) 46.5 (112) 0.000
Cohabit 17.8 (32) 42.3 (102)
Single/ Divorced 12.2 (22) 11.2 (27)
Trimester of pregnancy First trimester (<12 weeks) 27.8 (50) 24.9 (60) 0.506
Second trimester (12–26 weeks) 72,2 (130) 75.1 (181)
Received of iron and folic acid supplements No 38.5 (69) 35.7 (86) 0.548
Yes 61.5 (110) 64.3(155)
Received Fansidar during pregnancy No 43.6 (78) 52.3 (126) 0.077
Yes 56.4 (101) 47.7 (115)
Occupation status Formal employment 5.6 (10) 2.1 (5) 0.156
Self employed 83.3 (150) 85.5 (206)
Not employed 11.1 (20) 12.4 (30)
Household wealth Index Higher socio-economic 33.0 (59) 34.0 (82) 0.365
Middle socio-economic 30.2 (54) 35.3 (85)
lower socio-economic 36.9 (66) 30.7 (74)
Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) Thin (<23cm) 3.9 (7) 3.7 (9) 0.079
Normal (between 23 and 33cm) 91.6 (164) 90.9 (219)
Overweight or obesity (above 33 cm) 4.5 (8) 5.4 (13)
Malaria infection No 96.7 (174) 95.0 (229) 0.409
Yes 3.3 (6) 5.0 (12)
Serum C- reactive protein (CRP) CRP≤5mg/L 89.4 (161) 92.1 (222) 0.344
CRP ˃5mg/L 50.0 (19) 7.9 (19)
Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) AGP< = 1 g/L 80.6 (145) 81.3 (196) 0.542
AGP>1 g/L 19.4 (35) 18.7 (45)

Multivariate analysis

Table 4 presented all variables which were significant at arbitrary levels in the bivariate analysis and hence qualify to be included in the multivariate analysis. Using a Log binomial regression method, the study found out that poor dietary intake were less likely among cohabiting pregnant women [Adjusted RR 0.22 (95% CI 0.09–0.50)] and; those who reported taking Fansidar (Sulfadoxine and Pyrimethamine, SP) tablets during pregnancy in Mbeya region [Adjusted RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.31–0.96)]. Further, the study found that poor dietary intake were more likely among pregnant women who were classified as overweight and obesity by the MUAC [Adjusted RR 3.49 (95% CI 1.10–11.06)] and; slightly significant among pregnant women of age group 25–29 years old [Adjusted RR 2.05 (95% CI 0.98–4.29)]. Poor dietary intake was not associated with higher concentrations of inflammatory factors i.e. CRP and AGP.

Table 4. Multivariate log binomial regression methods were used to assess factors associated with poor dietary intake among pregnant women in Mbeya (n = 420).

Variable Category Adjusted RR 95% confidence interval for Adj. RR
Lower bound Upper bound
Age group 15–19 1.22 0.51 2.89
20–24 1.31 0.66 2.59
25–29 2.05 0.98 4.29
35+ 1 1 1
Marital status Married 1.35 0.60 3.04
Cohabit 0.22 0.09 0.50
Single/divorced 1 1 1
Occupational status Formal employment 4.29 0.83 22.17
Self employed 1.02 0.45 2.29
Not employed 1 1 1
Education level No formal 0.73 0.21 2.56
Primary 0.95 0.47 1.91
Secondary and above 1 1 1
Household wealth index Higher socio-economic 1.40 0.77 2.56
Middle socio-economic 0.70 0.36 1.35
lower socio-economic 1 1 1
Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) Thin (<23cm) 3.02 0.52 17.50
Overweight or obesity (above 33 cm) 3.49 1.10 11.06
Normal (between 23 and 33cm) 1 1 1
Taken Fansidar during this pregnancy Yes 0.55 0.31 0.96
No 1 1 1
Malaria status Yes 1.89 0.54 6.62
No 1 1 1
Received of iron and folic acid supplements Yes 1.09 0.62 1.90
No 1 1 1
Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) AGP< = 1 g/L 0.94 0.48 1.81
AGP>1 g/L 1 1 1
Serum C- reactive protein (CRP) CRP≤5mg/L 0.60 0.24 1.50
CRP>5mg/L 1 1 1
Number of pregnancy Primigravida 1.09 0.54 2.22
Multigravida 1 1 1
Trimester of pregnancy First trimester (<12 weeks) 1.14 0.64 2.03
Second trimester (12–26 weeks) 1 1 1

The reference group is last category

Discussion

This study contributes to our understanding on socio-demographic drivers for poor dietary intake among pregnant women legally married or cohabiting in Tanzania. Worldwide, poor dietary intake has negative consequences for pregnancy and born children [1, 12]. This study found that dietary intake among pregnant women in the rural settings of Tanzania was largely characterised by low intakes of fruits and vegetables. The findings are very similar to those found in Ethiopia [12], Iran [30], and India [31]. However, a study from the urban settings of Tanzania reported a high consumption of vegetables among pregnant women [11]. This could be explained by the difference in research methodology especially the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study participants, and also the difference in dietary assessment tools used between the studies. Evidence shows that, the nutrients in fruits and vegetables such as fibers, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals play a key role in human health and well-being [3235]. Tanzania has recently developed its national food based dietary guidelines and, it has not yet been fully operationalized. Guidelines of other countries like UK and USA recommend a plant-based diet, rich in fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes to lower the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other health conditions [8, 27].

In this study, we highlight the factors that affect the dietary intake of pregnant women in the rural settings of Tanzania. Our findings affirmed previous researches on the relationship between cohabitation and dietary intake among pregnant women [36]. Pregnant women who engaged in cohabiting relationships seemed to have better education and financial position and, thus reflected on their decision power over their wealth [36]. From the anecdotal evidence, it is known that cohabiting relationships are a common practice in the study area. According to the study of Dinour and colleagues in 2012, they found that marital status is one of strong socio-demographic factors that greatly influence health-related behaviours and outcomes [37]. However, studies emanating from sub-Saharan African countries merge cohabitation and marriage into one category of marital status and, this is because pregnant women are reluctant to report the status of cohabitation because of stigma [38]. This study managed to assess separate the marriage and cohabitation statuses because there are often different outcomes for the health and well-being of pregnant women and their children in different settings. Further prospective cohort research is needed to investigate the social aspects that link marital transition and dietary intake outcomes among pregnant women in sub-Saharan African countries.

Parallel with globalisation, pronounced changes in the human behaviour and lifestyle such as decreased consumption of fruits and vegetables and increased consumption of unhealthy foods [38], have resulted in escalating rates of overweight and obesity among pregnant women. The trends of overweight and obesity among pregnant women in Tanzania has changed from being considered as a mild disorder to the major causes of morbidity and mortality associated with non-communicable diseases [13]. According to MUAC measures, this study found that only twenty one pregnant women had MUAC measures above 33cm [25]. Further, our study revealed that out of 420 pregnant women, only 12.6% and 29.3% consumed at least four servings of fruits and vegetables per week respectively. Similar findings were documented in the previous studies from low-income countries, where overweight and obesity pregnant women consumed less vegetable and fruits [12, 39]. In multivariate analysis, our data revealed that pregnant women who were overweight or obesity were significantly associated with poor dietary intake. Pregnant women with overweight and obesity need nutrition counseling that are supported by scientific evidence and that can be easily understood and translated into everyday life to improve maternal and birth outcomes. Findings from large, long-term randomised controlled trials provide convincing evidence that changes made in physical activity levels and dietary habits are effective in delaying, and possibly preventing, progression from overweight and obesity to non-communicable diseases [40]. Future prospective cohort research is needed to investigate the link between obesity and dietary patterns among pregnant women.

This study also highlighted an important finding, the protective effect to poor dietary intake among pregnant women who reported taking SP tablets. In Tanzania, SP tablets are offered to all pregnant women attending antenatal clinics between 16 and 24 weeks and, between 28 and 32 weeks [41]. The linkage between taking SP tablets and poor dietary intake protection could not established because malaria and nutrition interventions are well integrated into antenatal care in Tanzania, and both impart pregnant women with essential knowledge [42]. Further studies are needed to broaden the understanding on this relationship and, help researchers in sub-Saharan African countries to develop tailored interventions to improve maternal and birth outcomes.

Strengths and limitations

There are several strengths of this study. First, the study was able to use reliable survey data and blood samples from a large population sample and measured diet during the pregnancy using both the Prime Diet Quality Score tool and 24-hour dietary recall. Second, this study provides important information on factors associated with dietary intake among pregnant women of gestation period less than 28 weeks, which is important for fetal development, given the rapid cell growth, and development of immune cells and organs in the first trimester [43, 44]. Third, the present study is that it links social and biological data with dietary data and allows analysis of dietary intake. However, there were several limitations of the study. First, we inevitably have some level of measurement error in both dietary and social and biological data, as both were based on self-report. This source of error is, however, expected to be largely random, producing valid estimates for the study population. Second, we derived PDQS scores from 24-hour recalls, and there were limited precedents in published literature for converting these scores to equivalent scores for the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The validity of using the PDQS score assessed using 24-hour recall is an area of active research. Notably, the 24-hour recall method is used widely in developing countries and our findings provide support for the use of this metric for deriving PDQS in these settings. Our findings may not be generalisable to populations where dietary patterns and determinants outcomes differ from rural Tanzania. Associations may be stronger in populations with more prevalent micronutrients and other deficiencies in pregnant women.

Conclusions

The results of this study affirm that cohabitation and obesity affect dietary intake among pregnant women differently compared to marriage in rural settings of Tanzania. Further, the findings suggest that public health action is needed to promote the consumption of fruits and vegetables among pregnant women in Mbeya. We recommend prospective cohort research to investigate the social aspects that link poor dietary intake outcomes for developing a tailored gestational intervention to improve maternal and birth outcomes in sub-Saharan African countries.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All datasets underlying this study are freely available at the public repository https://osf.io/7ysb9/.

Funding Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  • 1.Latal-Hajnal B, von Siebenthal K, Kovari H, Bucher HU, Largo RH. Postnatal growth in VLBW infants: significant association with neurodevelopmental outcome. The Journal of pediatrics. 2003;143:163–70. doi: 10.1067/S0022-3476(03)00243-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pelletier JE, Laska MN, MacLehose R, Nelson TF, Nanney MS. Evidence-based policies on school nutrition and physical education: Associations with state-level collaboration, obesity, and socio-economic indicators. Preventive medicine. 2017;99:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ahmad S, Moorthy MV, Demler OV, Hu FB, Ridker PM, Chasman DI, et al. Assessment of Risk Factors and Biomarkers Associated With Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Among Women Consuming a Mediterranean Diet. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1:e185708. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lopez-Garcia E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Li TY, Fung TT, Li S, Willett WC, et al. The Mediterranean-style dietary pattern and mortality among men and women with cardiovascular disease. AJCN. 2013;99:172–80. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.068106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G, Salama JS, et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The lancet. 2019;393:1958–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organization. Comparative analysis of nutrition policies in the WHO European Region: a comparative analysis of nutrition policies and plans of action in WHO European Region. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe.2006.
  • 7.Culliford AE, Bradbury J, Medici EB. Improving Communication of the UK Sustainable Healthy Dietary Guidelines the Eatwell Guide: A Rapid Review. Sustainability. 2023;15:6149. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Thompson HJ. The dietary guidelines for Americans (2020–2025): pulses, dietary fiber, and chronic disease risk—a call for clarity and action. Nutrients. 2021;13:4034. doi: 10.3390/nu13114034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Venter IM, Winterbach A. Dietary fat knowledge and intake of mid-adolescents attending public schools in the Bellville/Durbanville area of the city of Cape Town. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2010;23. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gharib N, Rasheed P. Energy and macronutrient intake and dietary pattern among school children in Bahrain: A cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2011;10:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Madzorera I, Isanaka S, Wang M, Msamanga GI, Urassa W, Hertzmark E, et al. Maternal dietary diversity and dietary quality scores in relation to adverse birth outcomes in Tanzanian women. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2020;112:695–706. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zerfu TA, Pinto E, Baye K. Consumption of dairy, fruits and dark green leafy vegetables is associated with lower risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO): a prospective cohort study in rural Ethiopia. Nutr Diabetes. 2018;8:52. doi: 10.1038/s41387-018-0060-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tanzania National Nutrition Survey, TNNS, 2014 final report. Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre (TFNC), Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. 2015, Dar es Salaam. 2018.
  • 14.Bhanbhro S, Kamal T, Diyo RW, Lipoeto NI, Soltani H. Factors affecting maternal nutrition and health: A qualitative study in a matrilineal community in Indonesia. Plos one. 2020;15:e0234545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Popkin BM. Synthesis and implications: C hina’s nutrition transition in the context of changes across other low‐and middle‐income countries. Obesity reviews. 2014;15:60–67. doi: 10.1111/obr.12120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mayen AL, Marques-Vidal P, Paccaud F, Bovet P, Stringhini S. Socioeconomic determinants of dietary patterns in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2014;100:1520–31. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.089029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Azizan NA, Thangiah N, Su TT, Majid HA. Does a low-income urban population practise healthy dietary habits?. International health. 2018;10:108–15. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihy001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gicevic S, Gaskins AJ, Fung TT, Rosner B, Sabanovic E, Milesevic J, et al. Demographic and socio-economic predictors of diet quality among adults in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Public health nutrition. 2019;22:3107–17. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019001988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Coates JC, Colaiezzi BA, Bell W, Charrondiere UR, Leclercq C. Overcoming dietary assessment challenges in low-income countries: technological solutions proposed by the International Dietary Data Expansion (INDDEX) Project. Nutrients. 2017;9:289. doi: 10.3390/nu9030289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, NBS 2013. Population and housing census 2012.
  • 21.Strong C. Minimal risk in research involving pregnant women and fetuses. J Law Med Ethics. 2011;39:529–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00619.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S, World Health Organization. Sample size determination in health studies: a practical manual. World Health Organization; 1991. (Accessed on November 2023. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40062).
  • 23.Fung TT, Isanaka S, Hu FB, Willett WC. International food group–based diet quality and risk of coronary heart disease in men and women. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2018;107:120–9. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqx015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Logan D, McEvoy CT, McKenna G, Kee F, Linden G, Woodside JV. Association between oral health status and future dietary intake and diet quality in older men: The PRIME study. Journal of dentistry. 2020;92:103265. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Okereke CE, Anyaehie UB, Dim CC, Iyare EE, Nwagha UI. Evaluation of some anthropometric indices for the diagnosis of obesity in pregnancy in Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. African health sciences. 2013;13:1034–40. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v13i4.25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.World Health Organization. (2020). WHO guideline on use of ferritin concentrations to assess iron status in individuals and populations. World Health Organization. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331505 (Accessed November 2023) [PubMed]
  • 27.Stuebe AM, Oken E, Gillman MW. Associations of diet and physical activity during pregnancy with risk for excessive gestational weight gain. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2009;201:58–e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vyas S, Kumaranayake L: Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2006, 21: 459–468. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czl029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Landis JR, Koch GG: An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977, 33:363–374. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Akbari Z, Mansourian M, Kelishadi R. Relationship of the intake of different food groups by pregnant mothers with the birth weight and gestational age: Need for public and individual educational programs. Journal of education and health promotion. 2015;4. doi: 10.4103/2277-9531.154109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rao S, Yajnik CS, Kanade A, Fall CH, Margetts BM, Jackson AA, et al. Intake of micronutrient-rich foods in rural Indian mothers is associated with the size of their babies at birth: Pune Maternal Nutrition Study. The Journal of nutrition. 2001;131:1217–24. doi: 10.1093/jn/131.4.1217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Slavin JL, Lloyd B. Health benefits of fruits and vegetables. Adv Nutr. 2012;3:506–16. doi: 10.3945/an.112.002154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.King JC. Physiology of pregnancy and nutrient metabolism. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2000;71:1218S–1225S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/71.5.1218s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kind KL, Moore VM, Davies MJ. Diet around conception and during pregnancy–effects on fetal and neonatal outcomes. Reproductive biomedicine online. 2006;12:532–41. doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61178-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Imdad A, Bhutta ZA. Nutritional management of the low birth weight/preterm infant in community settings: a perspective from the developing world. The Journal of pediatrics. 2013;162:S107–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.11.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dallmann D, Marquis GS, Colecraft EK, Dodoo ND. Marital transition is associated with food insecurity, low dietary diversity, and overweight in a female population in rural Ghana. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development. 2023;23:22149–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dinour L, Leung MM, Tripicchio G, Khan S, Yeh MC. The Association between Marital Transitions, Body Mass Index, and Weight: A Review of the Literature. J. Obes. 2012; 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Marston M, Slaymaker E, Cremin I, Floyd S, McGrath N, Kasamba I, et al. Trends in marriage and time spent single in sub-Saharan Africa: a comparative analysis of six population-based cohort studies and nine Demographic and Health Surveys. Sexually transmitted infections. 2009;85:i64–71. doi: 10.1136/sti.2008.034249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.George GC, Milani TJ, Hanss-Nuss H, Freeland-Graves JH. Compliance with dietary guidelines and relationship to psychosocial factors in low-income women in late postpartum. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2005;105:916–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Harris SB, Petrella RJ and Leadbetter W. Lifestyle interventions for type II diabetes relevance for clinical practice. Canadian Family Physician. 2003;49:1618–1625. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Falade CO, Yusuf BO, Fadero FF, Mokuolu O, Hamer DH, Salako L. Intermittent preventive treatment with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine is effective in preventing maternal and placental malaria in Ibadan, south-western Nigeria. Malaria J. 2007;6:1–8. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-6-88 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mubyazi GM, Bygbjerg IC, Magnussen P, Olsen O, Byskov J, Hansen KS, et al. Prospects, achievements, challenges and opportunities for scaling-up malaria chemoprevention in pregnancy in Tanzania: the perspective of national level officers. Malaria J. 2008;135:1–6. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-7-135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Palmer AC. Nutritionally mediated programming of the developing immune system. Advances in nutrition. 2011;2:377–95. doi: 10.3945/an.111.000570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gruszfeld D, Socha P. Early nutrition and health: short-and long-term outcomes. In Evidence-Based Research in Pediatric Nutrition. Karger Publishers.2013;108: 32–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002529.r001

Decision Letter 0

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi

12 Sep 2023

PGPH-D-23-01270

Factors associated with poor dietary intake among pregnant women in Mbeya, Tanzania

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Masumo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 04/10/2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s13104-016-2122-3.pdf

- https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgph.0001828

- https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/files/195797445/Association_between_oral_health_status_and_future_dietary_intake_and_diet_quality_in_older_men_the_PRIME_study.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed."""

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article meets the criteria for PLOS Global public health journal publication and has a technically sound manuscript with conclusions that are supported by data presented in the results section. The cross sectional study design for the primary research question posed projects an ethically and methodologically sound design with mentioned limitations and weaknesses. This is further elaborated by the drawn conclusions which even with the mentioned biases in the design, answers the question posed and goes on to identify the associated protective and detrimental influencers to good dietary practices of pregnant women in Mbeya, Tanzania. Despite the mentioned practical hindrances to screening of pregnant women for their dietary practices (a vital public health problem if i might add) in a developing nation, the conclusions also justify the need for national dietary guidelines to guide nutrition during pregnancy for Tanzanian women.

An astounding attempt at statistical analysis of the data is seen through the sub-categorization of data captured from the questionnaire and attempt to find associations and correlations between the data and clear and correct use of mathematical formulas to infer or defer any data correlation or association. Additionally, data availability seems adequate through data projected in the tables and despite an isolated grammatical error the manuscript is presented in good palatable english. Line 143- grammar error (some text missing)

However, editorial recommendations are listed below.

line 123 &126/7- Provide a rationale and justification for exclusion criteria e.g why cut off at 28 weeks gestational age when the title of the article includes ‘pregnant women’ and why exclude pregnant woman taking medication and define the criteria used to define medication as shall be highlighted later in the review.

Line 144- provide a rationale for use of a screening tool (PDQS) that has not been tested in the population group of interest which is pregnant women in low to middle income countries (provide evidence if the case is otherwise). This is because even though the authors acknowledge the limitations of their choice of screening tool (PDQS in this case), the identification of the ‘at risk’ pregnant women is highly dependent on the validity, sensitivity and specificity of this screening tool and conclusions made should be translated and synthesized after acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the screening tool and why it was used despite the identified/known strengths/weakness.This critical analysis of the tool can be analyzed in a thorough and similar manner to the method of its translation to KiSwahili which appear to have been executed in an excellent manner.

line 163- The recall bias associated with a 24 hr recall has be acknowledged and a 30 day recall might have brought a different comparable outcome that could also be acknowledged in an obvious attempt to include a wider dietary assessment but this is speculation from a reviewer who shares the opinion that acknowledging such gaps might strengthen the recommendations for future research practice.

Line 267- Elaborate on the inclusion of pregnant women taking Fansidar(line 267,278, 336), iron and folic acid (line270) (chemicals that the reviewer considers to be medication) when the exclusion criteria excluded women taking medication.

285- The discussion appears to underreport the relationship between the socioeconomic environment or disease states like anemia, hypoalbuminemia etc to dietary intake even though such indices were reported to have been captured in the method and results. As a reader i remain unquenched as to whether the relationship was not reported because the relationship was insignificant to report or it was simple neglect.

Reviewer #2: Comment: we do not assess poor dietary intake, rather dietary intake to ascertain if its poor or not

in the methods: concern on authors assessing {“poor diet”) poor diet is an outcome of dietary assessment. You can only determine of the respondents consumed poor diet or good diet after the assessment. It is a product of assessment. I am not sure there is a tool designed to assess poor diet. We have tools to assess dietary intake. Analysis will confirm if the diet was poor or not. If the authors have to focus on poor diets, then they need to state of there are other findings that poor diets in the study population that has led to this study to assess the factors contributing to poor intake. However, if there is no primary data on this, then the focus should be to assess dietary intake.

There is need to review the statements in the whole manuscript, e.g. the statement “A cross-sectional study design was conducted in Mbeya” should delete the word design

The refined grains are portrayed as a good thing while in essence the focus of assessment should be the proportion of mothers consuming unrefined grains.

Poor dietary intake has seriously detrimental consequences for pregnancy and born children both in developed and developing countries (this statement has been overused, in the abstract, introduction and discussions)

In the discussion, the comparison between pregnant women and women with HIV may not be the ideal. Persons with HIV tend to receive a lot of nutrition education to improve their nutrition status given the effects of poor nutrition on HIV outcomes.

The findings and the title need to be aligned better; the results have had very specific association cohabiting, obesity, and malaria treatment. Maybe the title should consider capturing this. From the findings cohabiting did promote good dietary intake, it therefore does not qualify to be a factor of poor dietary intake.

The title suggests factors associated with poor dietary intake. Since the title has a bias on the poor intake, then emphasis on this should be discussed. It would be good to highlight possible factors that make cohabiting promote good dietary intake, this is not clear.

I also not only 5 % of the women were obese/overweight, but that’s also quite a small proportion and wondering if this is sufficient to draw the conclusion on effects of obesity on poor dietary intake. What is the link, a review of more literature for the discussions.

Fansider intake seems to have promoted dietary intake, however authors should discuss why this is so. How does malaria treatment improve dietary intake ?

The only dietary items focused on in the results are vegetables and fruits and partly grains, why haven’t the authors mentioned the other foods? Were they not of interest to pregnant women especially proteins (animal sources) given the nutrient needs in pregnancy? Especially iron?

Reviewer #3: Dear authors, thank you for the opportunity to review your work. This study has the potential to be a very interesting and valuable study, but some major modifications are required as outlined below:

Language editing is required. I started to correct some of the grammatical errors, but it became evident that there are many errors that will require language editing to fix these.

Introduction:

Gives a broad overview of the topic, however, language issues prevented from being able to fully understand what the authors are trying to explain.

Methods:

Study design: Adequately described.

Study population:

Please see further comments on manuscript provided.

Sample size and sampling procedure:

Adequately described.

Data collection:

Dietary intake and diet quality assessment:

More detail on the exact process followed to collect dietary intake data is required. Please see manuscript provided for more feedback.

I am also concerned about the relevance of using a tool developed for coronary heart disease risk when numerous other tools/instruments are available to determine dietary quality in pregnancy.

Demographic and socio-economic factors:

Adequately described.

Discuss anthropometric measurements under a separate heading. Also, please indicate which standardised techniques and/or references were used for measuring anthropometry.

Laboratory assessment:

Adequately described.

Data analysis:

Please indicate what cut-off level was used when reporting on P-values.

Ethics statement:

Please indicate whether informed assent was obtained from minors.

Results:

Reliability: Adequately described.

The characteristics of the study population: Adequately described.

Dietary intake and diet quality:

What was the mean/median PDQS score and how many women in the total sample were classified as having poor PDQS score?

This entire section (lines 258 - 265) needs to be rephrased since the text does not clearly explain what is indicated in Table 2.

Sentence in lines 261 - 264 needs to be rephrased as it does not make sense currently.

Lines 264 - 265: "Refined grains, baked goods and sugar-sweetened beverages were the most commonly consumed unhealthy foods" - According to the data presented in Table 2, 6.2% of women consumed four servings or more from the sugar sweetened beverages group per week? Thus it does not make sense how you make this statement?

Bivariate analysis:

Adequately described. Please make sure of P-values, since the P-value for those who received Fansidar tables during pregnancy is indicated as 0.077 in the table, but in the text it is flagged as being significant? It will also be good to explain (either in the introduction or discussion) what these tablets are given for and how often.

Multivariate analysis:

Again, please verify what cut-off level/value was used when reporting on P-values.

No P-values indicated in Table 4, thus the reference to P-value in line 284 does not make sense.

Discussion:

Needs language editing.

Also consider differences on dietary assessment tools used ad possible reasons for differences between findings from the current study and that of others (line 294).

Lines 333-344: Regarding IPT needs to be discussed in context of the findings of the current study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Benson Tarisai Gombe

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PGPH-D-23-01270.pdf

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002529.r003

Decision Letter 1

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi

3 Nov 2023

PGPH-D-23-01270R1

Dietary intake and associated risk factors among pregnant women in Mbeya, Tanzania

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Masumo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15/11/2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Line267-I remain unanswered by the lack of a rationale or clarity towards the reported exclusion of pregnant women taking medication whilst there was inclusion of pregnant women taking fansidar, iron supplements etc which by definition can fall under the category of medication.Kindly clarify this antagonistic exclusion criteria.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors,

Thank you for considering and implementing the changes recommended during the previous revision.

Only a few minor language / technical changes still required:

Results section:

Lines 281 - 282: Please revise this sentence and rephrase to perhaps read as follows: "However, refined grains and baked goods represented the highest percentage of servings consumed per week out of the six unhealthy foods assessed."

Discussion section:

Lines 316 - 319: Please revise this sentence and consider rephrasing to: "Guidelines of other countries like UK and USA recommend a plant-based diet, rich in fruit, vegetables...."

Line 349: the word "Finding" should rather be "Findings"

Line 353: The word "obese" should rather be "obesity"

Line 356: Insert the word "an" between the words "highlighted" and "finding"

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Benson Gombe

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PGPH-D-23-01270_R1_reviewer (1).pdf

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002529.r005

Decision Letter 2

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi

14 Nov 2023

PGPH-D-23-01270R2

Dietary intake and associated risk factors among pregnant women in Mbeya, Tanzania

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Masumo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 25/11/2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your quick action on the reviewers' comments. Reviewer 1 felt the issue they raised regarding your exclusion criteria was not adequately addressed. Please address this concern and return the manuscript to me for a final decision.

Thank you.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The exclusion criteria remains unchanged, it mentions that pregnant women taking medication were excluded and fails to explain why if this was so, there was inclusion of pregnant women taking fansidar(chemoprophylaxis for malaria), iron and folate supplements. All these chemicals are also medication so this antagonistic statement remains an issue.

Recommendations would advice to provide a meaningful exclusion criteria eg, the study excluded pregnant women taking medication for other reasons except malaria chemoprophylaxis plus iron and folate supplements

Reviewer #3: Dear authors,

Thank you for making the necessary / suggested changes to the manuscript. This research represents a very relevant topic of research and it is recommended that the manuscript be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002529.r007

Decision Letter 3

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi

28 Nov 2023

Dietary intake and associated risk factors among pregnant women in Mbeya, Tanzania

PGPH-D-23-01270R3

Dear Dr Masumo,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Dietary intake and associated risk factors among pregnant women in Mbeya, Tanzania' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Dickson Abanimi Amugsi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PGPH-D-23-01270.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: A rebuttal letter_dietary intake_03_10_2023.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PGPH-D-23-01270_R1_reviewer (1).pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: A rebuttal letter2_07_11_2023.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: A rebuttal letter2_Kilel_16_11_2023.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All datasets underlying this study are freely available at the public repository https://osf.io/7ysb9/.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES