Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 6757

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : February | Volume : 16 | Issue : 2 | Page : QC04 - QC08 Full Version

Knowledge and Perception of Pregnant Women regarding Excess Maternal Weight, Gestational Weight Gain and their Impact on Foetomaternal Outcomes: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: February 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/51245.15961
Dalia Rafat, Modassar Sulaiman, Tabassum Nawab

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, AMU, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Intern, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, AMU, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, AMU, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Dalia Rafat,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, AMU, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.
E-mail: drdaliarafat.16@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Well recognised associations exist between maternal obesity, Gestational Weight Gain (GWG) and adverse health outcomes for mothers and their babies. Studies regarding women’s knowledge of the risks of excess maternal weight and GWG are limited in both the populations assessed and also in their description of knowledge.

Aim: To examine women’s perception of their own weight in pregnancy and to assess pregnant women’s knowledge of complications of obesity and excess GWG and ways to manage the appropriate GWG.

Materials and Methods: A total of 216 pregnant women were recruited in this cross-sectional study from the antenatal clinic of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India between May and June 2018. Data was collected using an interviewer administered prestructured and pretested questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0.

Results: Mean age of study population was 25.02±4.6 years. Mean Body Mass Index (BMI) was 24.55±4.07 kg/m2. Frequent misclassification of their own BMI and inappropriate estimation of GWG by pregnant women was found in the present study. Overweight and obese women were more prone to inaccurate self-classification as 68.7% of overweight women and 62.5% of obese women underestimated their weight. Women had optimum knowledge for complications of obesity (69.4%) to mothers but knowledge is poor regarding complications to babies (45.5%). Also, awareness is significantly lower in obese women as compared to normal weight women p<0.05.

Conclusion: Notable deficiencies in the knowledge and perception of pregnant women regarding their weight, obesity, GWG and their impact on foetomaternal outcomes were found in the present study. Bridging this knowledge gap would be an important step towards improving short and long-term adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.

Keywords

Basal metabolic index, Obesity, Pregnancy

Overweight and obesity are widespread in almost every population in the world and is increasing exponentially in the developing countries too (1),(2). India is going through a double trouble of persistent problem of undernutrition alongside escalating rise in overweight and obesity (3). Pregnancy is one of the most important phase of a woman’s life and is suggested as the major event which could lead to excess weight gain and hence obesity. The rise in obesity during pregnancy is synonymous with the rising trend of obesity in the general population (4),(5).

Studies have shown well-recognised associations of obesity, excess GWG or its retention after delivery with adverse foetomaternal and perinatal outcomes including pre-eclampsia, Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM), instrumental or operative delivery, failed induction, foetal macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycaemia and perinatal mortality (6),(7). Besides, they could have deleterious effects on long-term health of both mothers and their child as foetal exposure to maternal obesity and excessive GWG can increase their risk of childhood obesity and chronic diseases later in life (8). Thus from public health perspective, obesity and GWG are considered to be a modifiable risk factor not only for adverse pregnancy outcomes but also for more serious long-term health problems.

Knowledge lonesome is not sufficient to modify behaviours and bring about positive consequences, but is considered to be an indispensable prerequisite (9),(10). Studies and meta-analysis designed at improving perinatal outcomes through dietary and lifestyle modifications, also found pregnant women’s knowledge and views to be a significant predictor of outcome measures (11),(12). Research considering pregnant women’s knowledge regarding the risks of maternal weight and obesity in pregnancy is an area of investigation that has only recently begun to emerge. The limited available international literature suggests that pregnant women have limited knowledge of the risks of obesity and inappropriate GWG and their impact on perinatal outcomes (13),(14),(15).

Majority of work in this field is from developed countries. Owing to marked sociocultural variations between Asian and Western populations, differences in the knowledge, perceptions and experiences of overweight and obese women during pregnancy are expected in Asian communities. India is an Asian country that is multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual. Given this cultural diversity in the population, health belief models and attitudes toward health among women in this country are likely to differ.

Considering this, the present study was planned with the following objectives: 1) to examine pregnant women’s perception of their own weight and healthy GWG in pregnancy; 2) to assess pregnant women’s knowledge of complications of obesity and excess GWG and 3) to investigate association between BMI of pregnant women and risk perception for complications of obesity and excess GWG in pregnancy.

Material and Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 216 pregnant women from antenatal clinic waiting rooms of a university affiliated, tertiary medical facility between May and June 2018 were recruited. The hospital has approximately 7000 deliveries per year and caters to patients from surrounding rural and urban areas with wide mix of socio-demographics. The study was approved by Institutional Ethical Committee (213/FM). The purpose of the study was clearly explained to the participants, and informed consent was obtained from each study participant. All the participants who came during the stated period of time following the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included.

Inclusion criteria: Pregnant women of Indian origin, 18 and <40 years of age with confirmed intrauterine pregnancy and are willing to comply with the protocol of the study and have signed the Informed Consent Form (ICF) were included.

Exclusion criteria: Pregnant women with no record of first-trimester weight, multiple gestations, pre-existing diabetes or Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) were excluded.

Study Procedure

A systematic random sampling technique was applied to select potential participants using their Ante Natal Care (ANC) registration number. During the study period of two months, considering a daily attendance of about 150 patients in antenatal clinic and 50 working days, total sampling frame consisted of about 7500 pregnant mothers. Dividing by required sample size, k was calculated as 36. Considering that some females were excluded based on exclusion criteria, every 30th pregnant female on registration list were invited for interview. In cases a respondent was not eligible, the immediate next respondent was considered. This was continued until the final sample size was reached. (Table/Fig 1) shows the recruitment of study subjects. A final sample of 180 subjects was assessed.

Data collection instrument and process: Data collection was done using a prestructured and pretested questionnaire, developed by adapting from previous similar studies and reviewing literature (14),(16),(17),(18). The questionnaire had two sections A and B. Section A dealt mainly with the socio-demographic data of the participants and included questions on women’s age, education, occupation, socioeconomic status (as per Modified BG Prasad Socio-economic scale (19)), gestational age and clinical history. Section B had questions appropriate to the purpose of this study and was based to meet study objectives like women were asked to identify themselves as being underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese. They were asked what they think is the healthy weight gain for themselves. They were then asked if they believe that being overweight/obesity or having excess GWG can increase problems in pregnancy for the mother and baby. Women who had replied positively were then asked Likert-scaled questions regarding the risk of having specific problems associated with excess maternal weight and GWG. Participants were also asked regarding their beliefs for dietary practices and physical activity as ways to manage GWG. Pre-pregnancy BMI was calculated with first trimester measured weight and height (noted from antenatal case records), based on Fattah C et al., recommendations who concluded that maternal mean weight and body composition stayed practically constant in the first trimester and BMI was categorised as per World Health Organisation (WHO) classification (20).

Data quality management: The questionnaire was administered to all subjects by a single investigator (a final year medical student) to avoid inter-observer variations. Data was cross-checked by other investigators. A pretest was done on 5% of the required sample in a similar setting. Questions which posed difficulty and became unclear were rephrased and corrected, and unnecessary questions were excluded after pretest.

Statistical Analysis

The data from the questionnaire was checked manually for completeness, coded, entered in MS excel sheet, then cleaned and exported to Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 for analysis. Descriptive statistics was presented in percentages and mean±SD for categorical and continuous data, respectively. Chi-square test was applied to study association between categorical variables. The p<0.05 was considered as significant.

Results

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics: Mean age of study population was 25.02±4.6 years. Majority belonged to urban areas. Mean gestational age was 26.5±8.1 weeks. Mean BMI was 24.55±4.07 kg/m2; 58.3% were normal weight, 26.7% were overweight and 13.3% were obese (Table/Fig 2).

BMI category and perception of own weight and healthy GWG: As compared to normal weight women, a significant percentage of overweight and obese women had misperception regarding their weight. Most of overweight women underestimated their weight, considered themselves to be underweight or normal weight (Table/Fig 3). We also found that a significant percentage of women lacked the correct knowledge of appropriate GWG. Majority of overweight women didn’t know about appropriate GWG and so were unable to estimate it at all. 62.5% obese women correctly estimated appropriate GWG but the ones who overestimated GWG also belonged largely to obese category (Table/Fig 4).

BMI category and perception of risks due to excess maternal weight and GWG: Significant association between BMI category and knowledge of risks to mother due to excess weight, p<0.05 was found in the present study (Table/Fig 5).

When association between BMI category and knowledge of risks to mother due to excess GWG was sought, no significant association was found (Table/Fig 6).

Women’s knowledge of specific adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, owing to excess maternal weight: It was found that majority of women had correct knowledge for high risk of conditions like diabetes mellitus, hypertensive disorders, caesarean section and difficult vaginal delivery (Table/Fig 7). Women’s knowledge for risks to babies owing to maternal obesity was very poor. For majority of adverse outcomes, either women had no awareness at all or believed that there is low associated risk (Table/Fig 8). Women’s perception regarding safe and effective ways to manage GWG in pregnancy: It was found that misconceptions regarding diet, physical activity and exercise are rampant among many pregnant women (Table/Fig 9).

Discussion

Authors found frequent misclassification of one’s own BMI and inappropriate estimation of GWG by pregnant women. Women in the present study underestimated their weight and overweight and obese pregnant women were more prone to inaccurate self-classification compared with normal weight women. The finding of inaccurate perception of body size is similar to those of Gaudet LM et al., and Callaway L et al., who reported that pregnant women tend to underestimate their BMI and underestimation of BMI was significantly more common in overweight and obese women (14),(21). There are several concerning aspects of the findings of the present study. The inaccurate categorisation of BMI indicates that the study participants may not realise how overweight or obese they are. Perception of true health risk related to body size is decreased in individuals who underestimate their weight (22). This may lead to a reduction in desire to both seek knowledge related to, and to participate in, healthy behaviours that reduce health risk (22). Moreover, underestimation of weight may lead to excess GWG. Herring SJ et al., found that overweight and obese women who underestimated their weight had a four-fold increase in the likelihood of excess GWG compared with overweight and obese women who correctly assessed their weight (23).

The results of the present study indicates that large proportion of women didn’t know about appropriate GWG. Majority of overweight women didn’t know about healthy GWG and were unable to estimate appropriate GWG for their BMI. This finding of the present study is in accordance with many other studies in which women overweight or obese women were least accurate in estimating correct GWG (14),(15),(24). Contrarily, large proportion of obese women in our study correctly estimated GWG for them. This might be due to the fact that greater percentage of obese women has correct perception of their weight, so more awareness. Also might be owing to their obesity they received more or retained more counselling by healthcare providers. It was found that although women are aware of risks to mothers due to excess maternal weight but, awareness is low regarding risks to babies. Regarding nature of risks to mothers, majority of women had optimum knowledge regarding common problems like diabetes, hypertension, caesarean section and postpartum haemorrhage but, for problems like difficulty in breast feeding and postpartum weight retention, they either don’t know or have misconceptions. Similar to our study Kominiarek M et al., and Nitert MD et al., found that their study population have correct knowledge regarding adverse outcomes like diabetes, hypertension and caesarean section (13),(25). Gaudet LM et al., and Shub A et al., however, reported that there is poor knowledge about these adverse outcomes in their study groups (14),(15).

Regarding adverse outcomes for babies, majority of women are either not aware of the risks or had misconceptions. Similar to our study, Kominiarek M et al., and Gaudet LM et al., also found that their study population had poor knowledge regarding risks to babies (13),(14). So, in our study although pregnant women were aware that excess maternal weight and GWG can have adverse effect on them but they are either unaware or had misconceptions for adverse effects on their babies. Given that a healthy baby is a highly valued outcome of pregnancy for most women (25),(26); increasing women’s knowledge of the adverse effects of excess weight and GWG on babies, may be a powerful motivating factor for both weight loss prior to pregnancy and also for appropriate GWG.

The present study also characterised pregnant women’s beliefs about appropriate physical activity and dietary approaches to achieve safe and effective management of weight gain in pregnancy, demonstrating that misconceptions regarding diet, physical activity and exercise are rampant among many pregnant women. Shub A et al., and Loh AZH et al., also found that their study participants were also found to hold many incorrect beliefs about safe weight management in pregnancy (15),(27). The results of the present study emphasise that prenatal healthcare providers should not assume that pregnant women are using safe and effective management strategies for appropriate GWG. Inaccurate beliefs and unsafe practices as ways to manage GWG contributes not only to the increasing frequency of excess GWG but, also results in increasing prevalence of associated adverse foetomaternal outcomes.

The present study has several strengths like besides assessing women’s knowledge and perceptions regarding their weight, GWG and impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes association of maternal BMI with women’s misconceptions were also studied. The authors used interview method, which increases participation compared with written surveys, especially for women who are reluctant to participate and are less confident in their written language abilities. A single researcher executed all the interviews, excluding interobserver variation. Participants were interviewed while they were awaiting their turns in antenatal clinics; the findings thus, reveal women’s present thoughts, and are free of the shortcomings of data collected both prospectively and retrospectively. The present study calls for further research in this field as this information is critical for developing strategies for education and for the prevention and management of excess maternal weight and GWG. Issues outside the scope of current study that needs to be focussed in future studies are: How much impact knowledge had on adverse outcomes and awareness of which risks and to whom, affects outcome more. Regarding imparting knowledge; at what time, of which type and by whom, so as to achieve best results also needs to be addressed.

Limitation(s)

Weakness of this study is the small sample size. Besides BMI, the influence of other socio-demographic traits and healthcare providers counselling, on women’s knowledge and perceptions were not assesed. These are important determinants and might be independently associated with differences in risk perception for complications of obesity in pregnancy.

Conclusion

To conclude, notable deficiencies in the knowledge of women regarding their weight were found, GWG and their impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes. Women underestimated their weight and overweight and obese pregnant women were more prone to inaccurate self-classification and misconceptions.Till recent past, we were facing the problems of undernutrition and underweight but due to the increasing prevalence of obesity in our population, proportion of women who are entering in pregnancy as obese is increasing. The burden of obesity related complications in pregnancy are thus likely to increase. There is a need to look into public health education measures and improve knowledge and practices of the population. Increasing women’s knowledge of the risks of excess maternal weight and weight gain and educating them about safe and effective ways to manage, healthy GWG would be an important step towards improving short and long-term adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. These health education strategies may in turn contribute in halting the self-perpetuating vicious cycle of increasing incidence and prevalence of non communicable diseases in the population.

References

1.
Obesity: Preventing and managing then global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Technical Report Series. 2000;894:01-253.
2.
Popkin BM, Adair LS, Ng SW. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews. 2012;70:03-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Wang Y, Chen HJ, Shaikh S, Mathur P. Is obesity becoming a public health problem in India? Examine the shift from under- To overnutrition problems over time. Obesity Reviews. 2009;10:456-74. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Heslehurst N, Ells LJ, Simpson H, Batterham A, Wilkinson J, Summerbell CD. Trends in maternal obesity incidence rates, demographic predictors, and health inequalities in 36 821 women over a 15-year period. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2007;114:187-94. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Institute of Medicine/National Research Council (Committee to Reexamine IOM Pregnancy Weight Guidelines, Food and Nutrition Board and Board on Children, Youth and Families) 2009 Weight gain during pregnancy: Re-examining the guidelines. Washington, DC; National Academies Press.
6.
Rosenberg TJ, Garbers S, Chavkin W, Chiasson MA. Prepregnancy weight and adverse perinatal outcomes in an ethnically diverse population. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2003;102:1022-27. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Baeten JM, Bukusi EA, Lambe M. Pregnancy complications and outcomes among overweight and obese nulliparous women. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91:436-40. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Darnton-Hill I, Nishida C, James WPT. A life course approach to diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Public Health Nutrition. 2004;7:101-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Bookari K, Yeatman H, Williamson M, Australian pregnant women's awareness of gestational weight gain and dietary guidelines: opportunity for action. Journal of Pregnancy. 2016;2016:8162645. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Sapp SG. Incomplete knowledge and attitude-behavior inconsistency. Social Behavior and Personality. 2002;30:37-44. [crossref]
11.
McPhie S, Skouteris H, Hill B, Hayden M. Understanding gestational weight gain: The role of weight-related expectations and knowledge. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015;55:21-26. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Thangaratinam S, Rogozinska E, Jolly K, Glinkowski S, Roseboom T, Tomlinson JW, et al. Effects of interventions in pregnancy on maternal weight and obstetric outcomes: Meta-analysis of randomised evidence. British Medical Journal. 2012;344:e2088. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Kominiarek M, Vonderhei S, Endres L. Maternal obesity: Do patients understand the risks? Journal of Perinatology. 2010;30:452-58. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Gaudet LM, Gruslin A, Magee LA. Weight in pregnancy and its implications: What women report. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2011;33:227-34. [crossref]
15.
Shub A, Huning EY, Campbell KJ, McCarthy EA. Pregnant women's knowledge of weight, weight gain, complications of obesity and weight management strategies in pregnancy. BMC Research Notes. 2013;6:278. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Okeh NO, Hawkins KC, Butler W, Younis A. Knowledge and perception of risks and complications of maternal obesity during pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet. 2015;5(9):01-05. [crossref]
17.
Asefa F, Nemomsa D. Gestational weight gain and its associated factors in Harari Regional State: Institution based cross-sectional study, Eastern Ethiopia. Reprod Health. 2016;13(1):01-07. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Kowal C, KukJ, Tamim H. Characteristics of weight gain in pregnancy among Canadian women. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2012;16:668-76. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Shaikh Z, Pathak R. Revised Kuppuswamy and B G Prasad socio-economic scales for 2016. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2017;4(4):997-99. [crossref]
20.
Fattah C, Farah N, Barry SC, O'Connor N, Stuart B, Turner MJ. Maternal weight and body composition in the first trimester of pregnancy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica. 2010;89:952-55. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Callaway L., M. O'Callaghan, H. McIntyre. Barriers to addressing overweight and obesity before conception. Medical Journal of Australia. 2009;19:425-28. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Post RE, Mainous AG 3rd, Gregorie SH, Knoll ME, Diaz VA, Saxena SK. The influence of physician acknowledgment of patients' weight status on patient perceptions of overweight and obesity in the United States. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2011;171:316-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Herring SJ, Oken E, Haines J, Rich-Edwards JW, Rifas-Shiman SL, Kleinman ScD KP, et al. Misperceived pre-pregnancy body weight status predicts excessive gestational weight gain: Findings from a US cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008;8:54. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Thompson MW, Nassar N, Robertson M, Shand AW. Pregnant women's knowledge of obesity and ideal weight gain in pregnancy, and health behaviours of pregnant women and their partners. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2011;51(5):460-63. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Nitert MD, Foxcroft KF, Lust K, Fagermo N, Lawlor DA, O'Callaghan M, et al. Overweight and obesity knowledge prior to pregnancy: A survey study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2011;11:01-08. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Hagger M, Orbell S. A meta-analytic review of the common-sense model of illness representations. Psychology and Health. 2003;18:141-84. [crossref]
27.
Loh AZH, Oen KQX, Koo IJY, Ng YW, Yap JCH. Weight management during pregnancy: A qualitative thematic analysis on knowledge, perceptions and experiences of overweight and obese women in Singapore. Global Health Action. 2018;11:149919. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/51245.15961

Date of Submission: Jul 05, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Sep 28, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Nov 23, 2021
Date of Publishing: Feb 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 07, 2021
• Manual Googling: Nov 23, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Jan 06, 2022 (16%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com