Investigating the normalization and normative views of gestational weight gain: Balancing recommendations with the promotion and support of healthy pregnancy diets
Objectives Gestational weight gain (GWG) is increasingly monitored in the United States and Canada. While promoting healthy GWG offers benefits, there may be costs with over‐surveillance. We aimed to explore these costs/benefits. Methods Quantitative data from 350 pregnant survey respondents and qua...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of human biology 2021-09, Vol.33 (5), p.e23604-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | e23604 |
container_title | American journal of human biology |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Moffat, Tina McKerracher, Luseadra Oresnik, Sarah Atkinson, Stephanie A. Barker, Mary McDonald, Sarah D. Murray‐Davis, Beth Sloboda, Deborah M. |
description | Objectives
Gestational weight gain (GWG) is increasingly monitored in the United States and Canada. While promoting healthy GWG offers benefits, there may be costs with over‐surveillance. We aimed to explore these costs/benefits.
Methods
Quantitative data from 350 pregnant survey respondents and qualitative focus group data from 43 pregnant/post‐partum and care‐provider participants were collected in the Mothers to Babies (M2B) study in Hamilton, Canada. We report descriptive statistics and discussion themes on GWG trajectories, advice, knowledge, perceptions, and pregnancy diet. Relationships between GWG monitoring/normalization and worry, knowledge, diet quality, and sociodemographics—namely low‐income and racialization—were assessed using χ2 tests and a linear regression model and contextualized with focus group data.
Results
Most survey respondents reported GWG outside recommended ranges but rejected the mid‐20th century cultural norm of “eating for two”; many worried about gaining excessively. Conversely, respondents living in very low‐income households were more likely to be gaining less than recommended GWG and to worry about gaining too little. A majority had received advice about GWG, yet half were unable to identify the range recommended for their prepregnancy BMI. This proportion was even lower for racialized respondents. Pregnancy diet quality was associated with household income, but not with receipt or understanding of GWG guidance. Care‐providers encouraged normalized GWG, while worrying about the consequences of pathologizing “abnormal” GWG.
Conclusions
Translation of GWG recommendations should be done with a critical understanding of GWG biological normalcy. Supportive GWG monitoring and counseling should consider clinical, socioeconomic, and community contexts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ajhb.23604 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2522623308</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2571619230</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3574-e48dc7c6abc3d2cd06061fed4b68cdc95171e3f9589a7be87ffff3f6645ba8143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAURi1ERUthwwMgS2wQUop_Eidh11aFFlViA-vIsW8SjxJ7sJ0ZDa_TF8WZlC66wBtbV8fn-vpD6B0lF5QQ9lluhvaCcUHyF-iMFoxkghPyMp1JzjJScH6KXoewIYTUglSv0CnndSF4Kc7Qw53dQYiml9HYHscBsHV-kqP5kyrOYmn1WolmB3hnYB-w63CfLh0BOeI9mH6IuJfGfsFXcpRWLS4Pyk0TWH3kAt6bOBwbbL2b3JM8zNut83GRDiDHOBwSAL1NlgPWBmJ4g046OQZ4-7ifo19fb35e32b3P77dXV_eZ4oXZZ5BXmlVKiFbxTVTmggiaAc6b0WltKoLWlLgXV1UtSxbqMouLd4JkRetrGjOz9HH1Zse-HtOAzaTCQrGNBC4OTSsYEwwzkmV0A_P0I2bffqMhSqpoDXjJFGfVkp5F4KHrtl6M0l_aChpluiaJbrmGF2C3z8q53YC_YT-yyoBdAX2ZoTDf1TN5ffbq1X6F1o_qFI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2571619230</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Investigating the normalization and normative views of gestational weight gain: Balancing recommendations with the promotion and support of healthy pregnancy diets</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Moffat, Tina ; McKerracher, Luseadra ; Oresnik, Sarah ; Atkinson, Stephanie A. ; Barker, Mary ; McDonald, Sarah D. ; Murray‐Davis, Beth ; Sloboda, Deborah M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Moffat, Tina ; McKerracher, Luseadra ; Oresnik, Sarah ; Atkinson, Stephanie A. ; Barker, Mary ; McDonald, Sarah D. ; Murray‐Davis, Beth ; Sloboda, Deborah M.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
Gestational weight gain (GWG) is increasingly monitored in the United States and Canada. While promoting healthy GWG offers benefits, there may be costs with over‐surveillance. We aimed to explore these costs/benefits.
Methods
Quantitative data from 350 pregnant survey respondents and qualitative focus group data from 43 pregnant/post‐partum and care‐provider participants were collected in the Mothers to Babies (M2B) study in Hamilton, Canada. We report descriptive statistics and discussion themes on GWG trajectories, advice, knowledge, perceptions, and pregnancy diet. Relationships between GWG monitoring/normalization and worry, knowledge, diet quality, and sociodemographics—namely low‐income and racialization—were assessed using χ2 tests and a linear regression model and contextualized with focus group data.
Results
Most survey respondents reported GWG outside recommended ranges but rejected the mid‐20th century cultural norm of “eating for two”; many worried about gaining excessively. Conversely, respondents living in very low‐income households were more likely to be gaining less than recommended GWG and to worry about gaining too little. A majority had received advice about GWG, yet half were unable to identify the range recommended for their prepregnancy BMI. This proportion was even lower for racialized respondents. Pregnancy diet quality was associated with household income, but not with receipt or understanding of GWG guidance. Care‐providers encouraged normalized GWG, while worrying about the consequences of pathologizing “abnormal” GWG.
Conclusions
Translation of GWG recommendations should be done with a critical understanding of GWG biological normalcy. Supportive GWG monitoring and counseling should consider clinical, socioeconomic, and community contexts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1042-0533</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6300</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.23604</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33956376</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biomonitoring ; Canada ; Diet ; Female ; Focus groups ; Gestational Weight Gain ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Households ; Humans ; Income ; Ontario ; Polls & surveys ; Pregnancy ; Qualitative analysis ; Racialization ; Regression models ; United States ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>American journal of human biology, 2021-09, Vol.33 (5), p.e23604-n/a</ispartof><rights>2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3574-e48dc7c6abc3d2cd06061fed4b68cdc95171e3f9589a7be87ffff3f6645ba8143</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3574-e48dc7c6abc3d2cd06061fed4b68cdc95171e3f9589a7be87ffff3f6645ba8143</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9273-0339</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fajhb.23604$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fajhb.23604$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33956376$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moffat, Tina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKerracher, Luseadra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oresnik, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Stephanie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barker, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDonald, Sarah D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray‐Davis, Beth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sloboda, Deborah M.</creatorcontrib><title>Investigating the normalization and normative views of gestational weight gain: Balancing recommendations with the promotion and support of healthy pregnancy diets</title><title>American journal of human biology</title><addtitle>Am J Hum Biol</addtitle><description>Objectives
Gestational weight gain (GWG) is increasingly monitored in the United States and Canada. While promoting healthy GWG offers benefits, there may be costs with over‐surveillance. We aimed to explore these costs/benefits.
Methods
Quantitative data from 350 pregnant survey respondents and qualitative focus group data from 43 pregnant/post‐partum and care‐provider participants were collected in the Mothers to Babies (M2B) study in Hamilton, Canada. We report descriptive statistics and discussion themes on GWG trajectories, advice, knowledge, perceptions, and pregnancy diet. Relationships between GWG monitoring/normalization and worry, knowledge, diet quality, and sociodemographics—namely low‐income and racialization—were assessed using χ2 tests and a linear regression model and contextualized with focus group data.
Results
Most survey respondents reported GWG outside recommended ranges but rejected the mid‐20th century cultural norm of “eating for two”; many worried about gaining excessively. Conversely, respondents living in very low‐income households were more likely to be gaining less than recommended GWG and to worry about gaining too little. A majority had received advice about GWG, yet half were unable to identify the range recommended for their prepregnancy BMI. This proportion was even lower for racialized respondents. Pregnancy diet quality was associated with household income, but not with receipt or understanding of GWG guidance. Care‐providers encouraged normalized GWG, while worrying about the consequences of pathologizing “abnormal” GWG.
Conclusions
Translation of GWG recommendations should be done with a critical understanding of GWG biological normalcy. Supportive GWG monitoring and counseling should consider clinical, socioeconomic, and community contexts.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biomonitoring</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Focus groups</subject><subject>Gestational Weight Gain</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Households</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Income</subject><subject>Ontario</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Racialization</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1042-0533</issn><issn>1520-6300</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAURi1ERUthwwMgS2wQUop_Eidh11aFFlViA-vIsW8SjxJ7sJ0ZDa_TF8WZlC66wBtbV8fn-vpD6B0lF5QQ9lluhvaCcUHyF-iMFoxkghPyMp1JzjJScH6KXoewIYTUglSv0CnndSF4Kc7Qw53dQYiml9HYHscBsHV-kqP5kyrOYmn1WolmB3hnYB-w63CfLh0BOeI9mH6IuJfGfsFXcpRWLS4Pyk0TWH3kAt6bOBwbbL2b3JM8zNut83GRDiDHOBwSAL1NlgPWBmJ4g046OQZ4-7ifo19fb35e32b3P77dXV_eZ4oXZZ5BXmlVKiFbxTVTmggiaAc6b0WltKoLWlLgXV1UtSxbqMouLd4JkRetrGjOz9HH1Zse-HtOAzaTCQrGNBC4OTSsYEwwzkmV0A_P0I2bffqMhSqpoDXjJFGfVkp5F4KHrtl6M0l_aChpluiaJbrmGF2C3z8q53YC_YT-yyoBdAX2ZoTDf1TN5ffbq1X6F1o_qFI</recordid><startdate>202109</startdate><enddate>202109</enddate><creator>Moffat, Tina</creator><creator>McKerracher, Luseadra</creator><creator>Oresnik, Sarah</creator><creator>Atkinson, Stephanie A.</creator><creator>Barker, Mary</creator><creator>McDonald, Sarah D.</creator><creator>Murray‐Davis, Beth</creator><creator>Sloboda, Deborah M.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9273-0339</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202109</creationdate><title>Investigating the normalization and normative views of gestational weight gain: Balancing recommendations with the promotion and support of healthy pregnancy diets</title><author>Moffat, Tina ; McKerracher, Luseadra ; Oresnik, Sarah ; Atkinson, Stephanie A. ; Barker, Mary ; McDonald, Sarah D. ; Murray‐Davis, Beth ; Sloboda, Deborah M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3574-e48dc7c6abc3d2cd06061fed4b68cdc95171e3f9589a7be87ffff3f6645ba8143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biomonitoring</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Focus groups</topic><topic>Gestational Weight Gain</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Households</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Income</topic><topic>Ontario</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Racialization</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moffat, Tina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKerracher, Luseadra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oresnik, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Stephanie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barker, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDonald, Sarah D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray‐Davis, Beth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sloboda, Deborah M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of human biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moffat, Tina</au><au>McKerracher, Luseadra</au><au>Oresnik, Sarah</au><au>Atkinson, Stephanie A.</au><au>Barker, Mary</au><au>McDonald, Sarah D.</au><au>Murray‐Davis, Beth</au><au>Sloboda, Deborah M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Investigating the normalization and normative views of gestational weight gain: Balancing recommendations with the promotion and support of healthy pregnancy diets</atitle><jtitle>American journal of human biology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Hum Biol</addtitle><date>2021-09</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e23604</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e23604-n/a</pages><issn>1042-0533</issn><eissn>1520-6300</eissn><abstract>Objectives
Gestational weight gain (GWG) is increasingly monitored in the United States and Canada. While promoting healthy GWG offers benefits, there may be costs with over‐surveillance. We aimed to explore these costs/benefits.
Methods
Quantitative data from 350 pregnant survey respondents and qualitative focus group data from 43 pregnant/post‐partum and care‐provider participants were collected in the Mothers to Babies (M2B) study in Hamilton, Canada. We report descriptive statistics and discussion themes on GWG trajectories, advice, knowledge, perceptions, and pregnancy diet. Relationships between GWG monitoring/normalization and worry, knowledge, diet quality, and sociodemographics—namely low‐income and racialization—were assessed using χ2 tests and a linear regression model and contextualized with focus group data.
Results
Most survey respondents reported GWG outside recommended ranges but rejected the mid‐20th century cultural norm of “eating for two”; many worried about gaining excessively. Conversely, respondents living in very low‐income households were more likely to be gaining less than recommended GWG and to worry about gaining too little. A majority had received advice about GWG, yet half were unable to identify the range recommended for their prepregnancy BMI. This proportion was even lower for racialized respondents. Pregnancy diet quality was associated with household income, but not with receipt or understanding of GWG guidance. Care‐providers encouraged normalized GWG, while worrying about the consequences of pathologizing “abnormal” GWG.
Conclusions
Translation of GWG recommendations should be done with a critical understanding of GWG biological normalcy. Supportive GWG monitoring and counseling should consider clinical, socioeconomic, and community contexts.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>33956376</pmid><doi>10.1002/ajhb.23604</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9273-0339</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1042-0533 |
ispartof | American journal of human biology, 2021-09, Vol.33 (5), p.e23604-n/a |
issn | 1042-0533 1520-6300 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2522623308 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Adult Biomonitoring Canada Diet Female Focus groups Gestational Weight Gain Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Households Humans Income Ontario Polls & surveys Pregnancy Qualitative analysis Racialization Regression models United States Young Adult |
title | Investigating the normalization and normative views of gestational weight gain: Balancing recommendations with the promotion and support of healthy pregnancy diets |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T04%3A54%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Investigating%20the%20normalization%20and%20normative%20views%20of%20gestational%20weight%20gain:%20Balancing%20recommendations%20with%20the%20promotion%20and%20support%20of%20healthy%20pregnancy%20diets&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20human%20biology&rft.au=Moffat,%20Tina&rft.date=2021-09&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e23604&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e23604-n/a&rft.issn=1042-0533&rft.eissn=1520-6300&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ajhb.23604&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2571619230%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2571619230&rft_id=info:pmid/33956376&rfr_iscdi=true |