Table 4.

The association between low, medium, and high dietary risk scores, excessive GWG, and macrosomia

	Excessive GWG			Macrosomia
		RR [95% CI]a			OR [95% CI]b
	Cases (%)/n	Crude	Adjustedc	Cases (%)/n	Crude	Adjustedd
Low scores (≤2)	99 (32%)/305	Ref	Ref	14 (4%)/377	Ref	Ref
Medium scores (3)	217 (34%)/632	1.06 [0.87, 1.28]	1.04 [0.86, 1.26]	40 (5%)/766	1.43 [0.77, 2.66]	1.39 [0.73, 2.62]
High scores (≥4)	160 (41%)/389	1.27 [1.04, 1.55]e	1.23 [1.002, 1.50]e	37 (7%)/508	2.04 [1.09, 3.83]e	2.20 [1.14, 4.25]e

Note. CI: confidence interval; GWG: gestational weight gain. OR: odds ratio; RR: relative risk.

^aPoisson log‐linear regression model, reflecting the risk of excessive GWG. Excess GWG was determined in accordance with the Icelandic recommendations,i.e., for underweight and normal‐weight women >18 kg and overweight and obese women >12 kg total GWG.

^bLogistic regression model, reflecting the odds of giving birth to a macrosomic infant (birthweight ≥4500 g).

^cAdjusted for maternal prepregnancy BMI, age, parity, smoking during pregnancy, educational level, gestational length when the highest weight was recorded and NVP experience.

^dAdjusted for maternal prepregnancy BMI, age, parity, smoking during pregnancy, educational level, total gestational length and offspring sex.

^eindicates significant associations.