Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations between three dietary patterns and low birth weight and macrosomia among pregnant women in Shanghai, China

From: Maternal dietary patterns during pregnancy and birth weight: a prospective cohort study

 

Score category

Variables

Tertile 1

Tertile 2

Tertile 3

P-trend

Low birth weight

    

Plant-based dietary pattern

    

 N Cases/Total

36/1341

32/1315

37/1309

 

 Model 1

1.00 (ref)

0.90 (0.55–1.46)

1.06 (0.67–1.69)

0.745

 Model 2

1.00 (ref)

0.78 (0.44–1.38)

0.74 (0.38–1.43)

0.383

 Model 3

1.00 (ref)

0.80 (0.45–1.44)

0.76 (0.38–1.52)

0.493

Animal-based dietary pattern

    

 N Cases/Total

28/1335

38/1303

39/1327

 

 Model 1

1.00 (ref)

1.38 (0.84–2.26)

1.38 (0.84–2.26)

0.251

 Model 2

1.00 (ref)

1.71 (0.94–3.12)

1.70 (0.87–3.31)

0.167

 Model 3

1.00 (ref)

1.57 (0.85–2.89)

1.44 (0.72–2.90)

0.403

Processed food and beverage

dietary pattern

    

 N Cases/Total

44/1318

32/1333

29/1314

 

 Model 1

1.00 (ref)

0.71 (0.45–1.13)

0.66 (0.41–1.06)

0.109

 Model 2

1.00 (ref)

0.79 (0.46–1.37)

0.55 (0.31-1.00)

0.054

 Model 3

1.00 (ref)

0.84 (0.48–1.47)

0.59 (0.32–1.08)

0.073

Macrosomia

    

Plant-based dietary pattern

    

 N Cases/Total

54/1359

79/1362

86/1358

 

 Model 1

1.00 (ref)

1.49 (1.05–2.13)

1.66 (1.17–2.36)

0.007

 Model 2

1.00 (ref)

1.44 (0.99–2.07)

1.49 (0.99–2.24)

0.079

 Model 3

1.00 (ref)

1.45 (1.00-2.10)

1.55 (1.03–2.34)

0.039

Animal-based dietary pattern

    

 N Cases/Total

60/1367

91/1356

68/1356

 

 Model 1

1.00 (ref)

1.56 (1.12–2.19)

1.14 (0.80–1.63)

0.766

 Model 2

1.00 (ref)

1.69 (1.19–2.39)

1.17 (0.78–1.75)

0.723

 Model 3

1.00 (ref)

1.72 (1.20–2.45)

1.22 (0.80–1.84)

0.502

Processed food and beverage

dietary pattern

    

 N Cases/Total

77/1351

61/1362

81/1366

 

 Model 1

1.00 (ref)

0.79 (0.56–1.12)

1.07 (0.78–1.48)

0.435

 Model 2

1.00 (ref)

0.77 (0.54–1.10)

0.98 (0.70–1.37)

0.862

 Model 3

1.00 (ref)

0.82 (0.58–1.18)

1.07 (0.76–1.51)

0.673

  1. ORs and 95% CIs were calculated in logistic model: model 1 adjusted for maternal age (continuous variables, in years), and infant sex (male or female); model 2 also included maternal domicile place (south China, north China, or Shanghai surrounding area), pre-pregnancy BMI (< 18.5, 18.5–23.9, or ≥ 24.0 kg/m2), household income (< 100,000, 100,000-350,000, or ≥ 350,000 yuan/year), education (< 13 or ≥ 13 years), baseline season (spring/winter, summer, or autumn), parity (primiparous or multiparous), gestational periods at recruitment (first, second, or third trimester), passive smoking (yes or no), alcohol drinking (yes or no), physical activity (active or inactive), multivitamin (yes or no), calcium tablets (yes or no), folic acid (yes or no), total energy (continuous variables, in kcal/day), and gestational week at birth (continuous variables, in weeks) on model 2. Model 3 mutually adjusted for all extracted dietary scores in the same model based on model 2
  2. P for trend was obtained by modelling the median value of the tertiles into the logistic regression models
  3. N Cases/Total = number of cases and total participants in the study. OR = odds ratio. CI = confidence interval. Ref = reference
Back to article page

Nutrition Journal

ISSN: 1475-2891

Contact us