A qualitative study of fish consumption during pregnancy.

Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 6.5). 11/2010; 92(5):1234-40. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.30070
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Many pregnant women in the United States do not consume enough docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)--an essential nutrient found in fish. Apparently conflicting findings that fish consumption is beneficial for the developing fetus, yet potentially toxic because of mercury contamination, have created uncertainty about the appropriate fish-consumption advice to provide to pregnant women.
Our objective was to determine knowledge, behaviors, and received advice regarding fish consumption among pregnant women who are infrequent consumers of fish.
In 2009-2010 we conducted 5 focus groups with 22 pregnant women from the Boston area who ate <2 fish servings/wk. We analyzed transcripts by using immersion-crystallization.
Many women knew that fish might contain mercury, a neurotoxin, and had received advice to limit fish intake. Fewer women knew that fish contains DHA or what the function of DHA is. None of the women had received advice to eat fish, and most had not received information about which fish types contain more DHA or less mercury. Because of advice to limit fish intake, as well as a lack of information about which fish types they should be eating, many of the women said that they would rather avoid fish than possibly harm themselves or their infants. The participants thought that a physician's advice to eat fish and a readily available reference regarding which fish are safe to consume during pregnancy would likely have encouraged them to eat more fish.
Pregnant women might be willing to eat more fish if this were advised by their obstetricians or if they had an accessible reference regarding which types are safe.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To determine whether listening to a podcast about omega-3 fatty acids (n-3s) while grocery shopping increased shoppers' awareness about and purchases of seafood and other foods rich in n-3s. Methods Repeated-measures design with a convenience sample (n = 56) of grocery shoppers who listened to the podcast while shopping. Pre- and postintervention semistructured interviews were conducted. The Theory of Reasoned Action was the study's framework. Results Shoppers were primarily females (mean age, 41 ± 15.3 years). Their perceived ability to buy [t(55) = 6.27, P < .0001] and perceived importance regarding buying [t(55) = 3.38, P < .01] n-3–rich foods improved significantly. At least 1 n-3 rich food (mean, 1.5 ± 0.8) was purchased by 30%, and 79% planned future purchases. Conclusion and Implications Podcasts may effectively communicate nutrition information. More research with a larger sample size is needed to evaluate the effects of the podcast on long-term changes in shopping behavior.
    Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 11/2014; 46(6). · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several studies show that most women do not consume enough fish during pregnancy (and afterward) to derive the maximum health benefits for themselves and their babies, according to the USDA guidelines. We engaged in a two-part study to better understand what might be done to encourage women of childbearing age to eat healthy fish-a mail survey of women who recently gave birth in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and six focus groups with women of childbearing age living in the Great Lakes region. Similar to other studies, we found that many women changed their behavior and consumed less fish during pregnancy than before. Most women reported receiving information, primarily during pregnancy, about the types of fish and how much fish to eat. As a result, increasing access to information during pregnancy likely would not result in increasing many women׳s fish consumption. Based on our examination of factors influencing women to try to follow the recommendations, the strongest connection with trying to follow the recommendations was receiving enough information to decide and believing that eating fish was good for the baby. Focus group participants also reported that messages about the specific health benefits of fish consumption for their children were particularly influential. These findings suggest that refining messages through testing might be a valuable approach toward increasing women׳s consumption of less-contaminated fish.
    Environmental Research 09/2014; 135C:88-94. · 3.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current US federal dietary guidance recommends regular consumption of seafood (fish + shellfish) to promote health; however, little is known about how well Americans meet the guideline, particularly population subgroups that may be at risk for inadequate intake. The purposes of this study were to describe the prevalence of seafood consumption and, among consumers, the amounts of seafood eaten by sex, age group, income and education level, and race-ethnicity. Data from 15,407 adults aged 19+ participating in the 2005-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys were analyzed using methods to account for sporadic intake of seafood. Over 80% of Americans reported consuming any seafood over the past 30 days, 74% reported consuming fish, and 54% reported eating shellfish. The percentages varied by socio-demographic group. Younger age and lower income and education levels were associated with lower odds of being a seafood consumer (p < 0.0001). Among those who reported eating seafood, the average amount eaten of any seafood was 158.2 ± 5.6 g/week. Among seafood consumers, women and individuals of lower age and education levels consumed less seafood. Approximately 80%-90% of seafood consumers did not meet seafood recommendations when needs were estimated by energy requirements. A great deal of work remains to move Americans toward seafood consumption at current recommended levels.
    Nutrients 12/2014; 6(12):6060-75. · 3.15 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014