Next Article in Journal
Association of Maternal Pre-Pregnancy Overweight and Obesity with Childhood Anthropometric Factors and Perinatal and Postnatal Outcomes: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Alleviation of Cognitive Impairment-like Behaviors, Neuroinflammation, Colitis, and Gut Dysbiosis in 5xFAD Transgenic and Aged Mice by Lactobacillus mucosae and Bifidobacterium longum
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Association between Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Cardiometabolic Health at 6 Months following a Hypertensive Pregnancy: A BP2 Sub-Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/nu15153383
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dietary Intake and Its Association with Birth Outcomes in Women with Nausea and Vomiting during the Second Trimester of Pregnancy: A Prospective Cohort Study in Japan

by
Nao Nishihara
1,
Megumi Haruna
1,2,*,
Yuriko Usui
1,2,
Kaori Yonezawa
1,2,
Naoko Hikita
1,3,
Emi Sasagawa
1,4,
Keiko Nakano
1,
Moeko Tanaka
1,
Riko Ohori
1,2,
Satoko Aoyama
1,
Satoshi Sasaki
5,
Megumi Fujita
6,
Masayo Matsuzaki
7,8,
Yoshiko Suetsugu
3 and
Yoko Sato
3
1
Department of Midwifery and Women’s Health, Division of Health Sciences and Nursing, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
2
Global Nursing Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
3
Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
4
Department of International Health Care and Midwifery, Graduate School of Nursing, Japanese Red Cross College of Nursing, Tokyo 150-0012, Japan
5
Department of Social and Preventive Epidemiology, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
6
Department of Clinical Nursing, Graduate School of Medical Science, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
7
Department of Reproductive Health Nursing, Graduate School of Health Care Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan
8
Department of Children and Women’s Health, Division of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2023, 15(15), 3383; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15153383
Submission received: 29 June 2023 / Revised: 21 July 2023 / Accepted: 28 July 2023 / Published: 29 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Healthy Eating, Physical Activity, and Weight Changes among Pregnant and Postpartum Women)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is a common symptom. Although the influence of NVP during the first trimester on dietary intake and birth outcomes has been revealed, no study has focused on NVP during the second trimester. This study aimed to reveal whether NVP severity during the second trimester is associated with dietary intake, gestational weight gain (GWG), birth weight, and delivery week. Participants completed a questionnaire at 18–27 gestational weeks. NVP severity was assessed using the modified Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea scale in the questionnaire. Dietary habits were assessed using a brief-type diet history questionnaire. In total, 825 responses were analyzed: 202 (24.5%), 135 (16.4%), and 8 (1.0%) women reported mild, moderate, and severe NVP, respectively; 480 (58.2%) women did not have NVP during the second trimester. No significant association was observed between energy and nutrient intake and no/mild and moderate/severe NVP. Women with moderate/severe NVP had lower total GWG than those with no/mild NVP (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in low birth weight and preterm birth rates (p = 0.246 and p = 0.604). This is the first study to investigate whether NVP severity during the second trimester is associated with dietary intake and birth outcomes.

1. Introduction

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is one of the most common symptoms among pregnant women and is prevalent in 70–80% of them [1]. Although the pathogenesis of NVP remains unclear, previous studies have shown that various factors are involved in NVP: reproductive hormones (human chorionic gonadotropin, hCG; estrogen and progesterone), helicobacter pylori, and gastric slow-wave rhythm disorder [1,2]. NVP begins at 8 weeks and peaks at 11–13 gestational weeks [1,3]. Many studies on NVP in the first trimester have been conducted; however, only a few studies have focused on NVP during the second trimester. Although more than 40% of pregnant women experience NVP during the second trimester, more than 35% of them experience moderate or severe NVP [4,5]. Severe NVP is associated with hospitalization for NVP during the first trimester [6].
Nutritional intake during pregnancy is important for both maternal and infant health. During pregnancy, the required amounts of energy and nutrients increase; for pregnant Japanese women, protein, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, folate, and vitamin C are the nutrients with the estimated average requirements [7]. However, a previous study in Japan showed that the dietary intake of energy, protein, and some micronutrients was insufficient during the second trimester [8]. Few studies have been conducted on women with NVP and their dietary intake. Several studies have revealed that women with severe NVP in the first trimester had a lower intake of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients than those with less severe NVP or without NVP [9,10,11], while a cohort study conducted in Norway showed inconsistent results, in which women with NVP had a higher energy intake than those without [12]. However, no studies have been conducted to determine the association between NVP during the second trimester and dietary intake as yet.
The association between small GWG in pregnant women and severe NVP or vomiting during the first trimester has been previously revealed [11,12]. Inadequate GWG is associated with adverse birth outcomes; thus, attaining adequate GWG is important in pregnant women [13,14]. Although a negative effect of NVP during the first trimester on dietary intake and GWG has been reported, a previous study showed that women with NVP during the first or early pregnancy (first to second trimester) had a lower risk of preterm birth and low birth weight [15,16]. However, no study has revealed whether NVP during the second trimester is associated with GWG, infant birth weight, or delivery week.
Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether NVP severity during the second trimester is associated with dietary intake, GWG, birth weight, and preterm birth.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted as part of the Japan Pregnancy Eating and Activity Cohort (J-PEACH) Study, a prospective cohort study conducted in four cities in Japan: Yamagata, Tokyo, Osaka, and Fukuoka [17]. The population of Yamagata is smaller than the other three cities; approximately 0.2 million for Yamagata, 9.5 million for Tokyo, 2.7 million for Osaka, and 1.5 million for Fukuoka [18]. Participants were recruited during their prenatal care visits between March 2020 and October 2022. However, the recruitment part was suspended because of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, ability to read and write in Japanese, and expectation of delivery at the study participants’ hospital. Exclusion criteria were medical staff-deemed inability to participate and hospitalization for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). HG is defined as an extreme form of NVP, associated with weight loss, dehydration, and electrolyte deficiency [19]. HG prevalence is 1.2–1.6%, and HG is associated with hospitalization [20,21]. The enrolled participants received a questionnaire after 18 gestational weeks and completed it at 18–27 gestational weeks.
In the J-PEACH Study, 1707 pregnant women were recruited, and 1489 (87.2%) agreed to participate. After excluding those with incomplete data (n = 225), withdrew (n = 18), dropped out (n = 17), and had a gestational age >28 weeks (n = 221), the questionnaires were distributed to 1008 women in their second trimester (Figure 1). In total, 885 participants answered, while 842 participants completed the questionnaire. The response rate was 82.5%.
Participants who answered the questionnaire out of those with a gestational age of 18–27 weeks (n = 8), who were admitted for HG (n = 7), and without data on admission for HG (n = 2) were excluded. Finally, 825 women were included in this analysis.
The participants received the survey link via email. The questionnaire included questions regarding NVP symptoms, demographic information, psychological status, and dietary intake.
Participants were asked about their NVP experience in the past month (yes/no). Only women with NVP were subjected to the modified Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE) Scale to assess NVP severity. The original PUQE focused on NVP symptoms in the last 12 h [22], and it was modified to feature symptoms experienced over a wider period of time [5]. In this study, the modified PUQE was used because the recall period was equal to that of the dietary intake questionnaire. The modified PUQE was validated in English, and the validated Japanese version of the PUQE-24 was used, excluding period [23]. The modified PUQE uses a five-point Likert scale and is based on three symptoms of NVP: hours of nausea experience, number of retching episode, and number of vomiting episode on an average day in the past month. The total score ranged from 3 to 15, and was used to classify NVP as mild (3–6), moderate (7–12), or severe (≥13) [24]. Participants were then divided into two groups: no/mild NVP and moderate/severe NVP.
The questionnaire was also used to obtain information on demographic factors such as marital status, educational level, annual household income, and smoking status. Educational level was categorized as junior high school or high school, vocational training school or junior college, college, and postgraduate. Annual household income (Japanese yen) was divided into <7 million and ≥7 million. A household income of JPY 7 million was almost equal to the average household income of families with children in Japan [25]. Smoking status during pregnancy was considered a dichotomized variable (yes/no).
Information on the expected date of delivery (EDD), age, parity, and admission due to HG was obtained from the medical records. The gestational week at the time of answering the questionnaire was calculated using the EDD and response date. Self-reported weight and height were also obtained from the medical records. Pre-pregnancy BMI was calculated and categorized as <18.5 (underweight), 18.5–24.9 (normal weight), 25.0–29.9 (overweight), and ≥30.0 kg/m2 (obese) [26].
Dietary habits during the preceding month were assessed using a brief-type diet history questionnaire (BDHQ), which queried the consumption frequency of selected food and beverage items [27,28]. The intake of energy and 58 nutrients was estimated using an ad hoc computer algorithm (including weighting factors). The BDHQ has previously been validated in pregnant Japanese women [29]. Information regarding the number of consumed meals and skipped meals was collected using the questionnaire. Number of meals was defined as ≥50 kcal, with an interval of ≤15 min, during weekdays in the past month. Regarding skipped meals, participants were asked, “On weekdays over the last 1 month, which meal did you mainly skip?” and they answered, “breakfast”, “lunch”, “dinner”, or “mostly did not skip breakfast”. Participants with NVP answered a question about their degree of dietary intake and were categorized as experienced NVP and ate more than usual, ate as usual, ate less than usual, or could hardly eat. In addition, regarding the question about who prepares the meals, participants answered “self” or “others”. Regarding the question about food nutrition label checks for nutrients and calories, they answered, “yes” or “no”.
The GWG at each trimester and total GWG were calculated by subtracting the self-reported pre-pregnancy weight from the weight obtained from the medical records. Weight measured at antenatal visits and their corresponding gestational weeks were collected from medical records, and the week closest to the gestational weeks for each trimester was extracted for each woman: 12 weeks for the first trimester and 24 weeks for the second trimester. Pre-delivery weight, defined as the last weight measured before delivery, was also obtained from the medical records. The GWG increase rate between each trimester was calculated by dividing the weight difference by the gestational week difference. The total GWG increase rate was also calculated. Women with a total GWG lower than the minimum recommended value were defined as having insufficient GWG [26].
Information regarding birth weight and delivery week was also obtained from the medical records. Low birth weight and preterm birth were defined as birth weights of <2500 g and delivery at <37 weeks, respectively.
Women who did not complete the study questionnaire were excluded from the analysis. The Shapiro–Wilk test was conducted to examine the normality of the distribution of the variables. Comparisons of the demographic and psychological variables between the no/mild and moderate/severe NVP groups were evaluated using the Pearson’s chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables as none of the continuous variables were normally distributed. The no/mild and moderate/severe NVP groups for the total GWG, GWG at each trimester, and birth weight were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test and divided into pre-pregnancy BMI categories. The GWG increase rate and delivery week were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Participants with multiple pregnancies, preterm births, and a lack of data on delivery week were excluded from the GWG analysis. For birth weight and delivery week, only those who had multiple births and with a lack of data were excluded.
Participants that reported extremely unrealistic energy intakes were excluded from the analysis. Specifically, a reported energy intake less than half of the energy requirement for the lowest physical activity category or intake that was 1.5 times higher than the energy requirement for the moderate physical activity category was excluded [30]. Dietary intake between the two NVP groups was compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Nutrients with estimated average requirements for pregnant Japanese women were included in the analysis [7]. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS software version 29.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
The sample size was calculated using G*Power [31]. The amount of energy consumed was indicated as an outcome. Based on previous research, the effect size was determined to be 0.257 and the sample size was calculated at the 5% level with a power of 80% and an allocation ratio of 0.211 [5,32]. The estimated sample size was 868.

3. Results

3.1. Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy

In total, 480 (58.2%) women did not have NVP, and 202 (24.5%), 135 (16.4%), and eight (1.0%) reported mild, moderate, and severe NVP, respectively, during the second trimester. Among the women with mild NVP, only 37 (18.3%) experienced vomiting at a frequency of 1–2 times a day. On the other hand, among those with moderate NVP, 76 (56.3%) experienced vomiting and 12 (8.9%) experienced vomiting more than three times a day. All women with severe NVP experienced vomiting more than three times a day.

3.2. Demographic Characteristics

For the analysis, the participants were divided into two groups: no/mild NVP (n = 682) and moderate/severe NVP (n = 143). The median gestational week (25th–75th quartile [Q1–Q3]) was 22.0 (19.0–24.0), the median age of the participants was 34.0 (31.0–38.0) years, 393 (47.6%) women were multiparous, 601 (73.1%) women had normal BMI, and 15 (1.8%) were not married. Regarding education, 445 (53.9%) and 73 (8.8%) had college and postgraduate education, respectively, and 533 (64.6%) were employed (Table 1).
Women with moderate/severe NVP were significantly more likely to have a lower gestational age, were unmarried, and were less likely to smoke compared with those with no/mild NVP. No significant differences were observed in parity, number of fetuses, pre-pregnancy BMI, education, work, household income, or city.
As for the cities, the participants from Yamagata were significantly less educated (college or postgraduate: 43.4%, p < 0.001) and had less household income (≥7 million yen: 39.6%, p < 0.001) than those from the other three cities; Tokyo, Osaka, and Fukuoka. No significant difference was observed in age, parity, the number of fetuses, marital status, and pre-pregnancy BMI between Yamagata and the other three cities.

3.3. Dietary Intake

The energy intakes, body-mass-adjusted intakes of macronutrients and energy-adjusted micronutrients of women with no/mild NVP and those with moderate/severe NVP are compared in Table 2. Those with unrealistic energy intakes were excluded from the analysis of the BDHQ: one (0.1%) for over-reporting in the no/mild NVP group and 47 (6.9%) and 22 (15.4%) for under-reporting in the no/mild and moderate/severe NVP groups, respectively. In total, the BDHQ data from 755 women were analyzed. The excluded 70 participants were significantly more likely to be either primipara (n = 46, 65.7%) or unmarried (n = 4, 5.7%) than the 755 analyzed women.
There were no significant differences in the energy intake, body-mass-adjusted intakes of macronutrients and energy-adjusted micronutrients between the two NVP groups. Regarding the degree of dietary intake, of the 365 women with NVP, 36 (4.4%) answered that they ate more than usual, 198 (24.0%) ate as usual, 102 (12.4%) ate less than usual, and nine (1.1%) could hardly eat.
A comparison of the effect of energy and macronutrient and micronutrient intakes on the degree of dietary intake was conducted; women who ate more than usual had significantly higher energy and nutrient intakes than those without NVP. However, when women who ate more than usual were excluded, the results of the comparison of the energy and nutritional intakes between women with no/mild NVP and those with moderate/severe NVP did not differ.
Women in the moderate/severe NVP group were more likely to consume noodles, pickled vegetables, tea, and juice than those in the no/mild NVP group (Table 3).
The dietary habits of women with no/mild NVP and those with moderate/severe NVP are compared in Table 4. Women with moderate/severe NVP were significantly more likely to skip meals than those with no/mild NVP during the second trimester (p = 0.003). Skipped meals on weekdays included breakfast (137; 68.8%), lunch (27; 13.6%), dinner (25; 12.6%), breakfast and lunch (4; 2.0%), breakfast and dinner (4; 2.0%), and all three meals (2; 1.0%). In total, 37 (25.9%) women with moderate/severe NVP skipped breakfast, a percentage significantly higher than that of women with no/mild NVP (110, 16.1%). Number of meals including snack was not significantly different between the two groups, as both had a median (Q1–Q3) of 4.0 meals (3.0–4.0) a day. The moderate/severe NVP group was significantly less likely to check food nutrition labels for nutrients than the no/mild NVP group, whereas checks for calories was not significantly different. More than 90% of the participants prepared their meals, with no significant difference between the two NVP groups.

3.4. Gestational Weight Gain, Low Birth Weight, and Preterm Birth

Table 5 shows the results of the comparison of GWG, birth weight, and delivery week between women with no/mild and those with moderate/severe NVP. The total GWG, first trimester GWG, and second trimester GWG were 9.9, 0.3, and 4.1 kg, respectively.
Regarding GWG, women who had multiple pregnancies or preterm births were excluded, and data from 684 women were analyzed. Women with moderate/severe NVP had a smaller total GWG (median, [Q1–Q3]) than those with no/mild NVP (10.0 (7.9–12.1) vs. 9.0 (6.4–11.4) kg). Regarding the pre-pregnancy BMI category, no significant difference remained, but for the pre-pregnancy BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 (normal weight) group, women with moderate/severe NVP seemed to have a smaller total GWG (p = 0.050). Regarding GWG in the first and second trimesters, both the overall participant population and pre-pregnancy BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 group comparisons showed smaller GWG for women with moderate/severe NVP than for those with no/mild NVP. For all participants, the proportion of patients with insufficient GWG was 51.5%, which was not significantly different between the two groups. Regarding the GWG increase rate, the moderate/severe NVP group had significantly smaller rates than the no/mild group during the first trimester, around 12 weeks (−0.02 [−0.15–0.08] vs. 0.03 [−0.06–0.13] kg). Significance was only observed in the pre-pregnancy BMI 18.5–24.9 group (normal weight). However, no significant difference was observed in the GWG increase rate during the second trimester.
Regarding birth weight and delivery week, only women with multiple pregnancies were excluded, and data from 743 and 736 women, respectively, were analyzed. Median (Q1–Q3) birth weight and delivery week were 3020.0 g (2752.0–3288.0) and 39.0 (38.0–40.0), respectively. The rates of low birth weight and preterm births were 7.0% and 8.1%, respectively, with no significant differences between the two groups.

4. Discussion

This study was part of the J-PEACH Study, a prospective cohort study conducted in four cities in Japan. The present study examined whether NVP severity during the second trimester was associated with dietary intake, GWG, birth weight, and preterm birth. No significant association was observed between energy, macronutrient, and micronutrient intakes and no/mild and moderate/severe NVP. Women with moderate/severe NVP had a smaller total GWG than those with no/mild NVP, with no significant differences in birth weight, delivery week, and rates of low birth weight and preterm birth.
The prevalence rates of mild, moderate, and severe NVP were 24.5%, 16.4%, and 1.0%, respectively, implying that more than 40% experienced NVP and 17.4% experienced moderate or severe NVP during the second trimester. This was almost consistent with the result of a previous study in Canada that measured the NVP severity during the second trimester using a modified PUQE scale (25.4% for mild, 14.4% for moderate, and 0.3% for severe) [5]. Women with moderate/severe NVP during the second trimester had a significantly earlier gestational age than those with no/mild NVP in the present study. Although a previous study showed that the severity of nausea and retching decreased as gestational age increased during the first trimester [33], this is the first study to reveal that the severity of NVP during the second trimester also decreases as gestational age increases.
In the current study, there was no significant difference in energy, macronutrient, and micronutrient intakes between women with moderate/severe NVP and those with no/mild NVP during the second trimester. This finding was inconsistent with those reported in previous studies showing that women with severe NVP in the first trimester had lower intakes of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients than those with less severe NVP or without NVP [9,10,11]. Regarding meal skipping in the present study, women in the moderate/severe NVP group were more likely to skip meals, especially breakfast, but the number of meals including snacks was not significantly different from that reported in the no/mild group. This implies that women with moderate/severe NVP may be able to complement their dietary intake by consuming frequent meals including snacks, even though they are more likely to skip meals.
However, it is necessary to consider that the BDHQ has low validity for estimating energy intake in women with NVP. In a previous study on BDHQ validation among pregnant women, the estimated energy from the BDHQ was higher than that from the 3-day dietary record only among women with NVP [29]. Energy intake is more likely to be overestimated in the moderate/severe NVP group than in the no/mild NVP group. Additionally, as women with NVP are more likely to underreport their dietary intake [34], the exclusion rate, the rate of answering the unrealistic energy intake of BDHQ was higher in the moderate/severe NVP group than in the no/mild group (15.4% vs. 6.9%). This measurement limitation may have a greater effect on the moderate/severe NVP group than on the no/mild NVP group in terms of statistical indicators of energy intake.
Women in the moderate/severe NVP group were more likely to consume noodles, pickled vegetables, tea, and juice than those in the no/mild NVP group in this study. Women with moderate/severe NVP were also significantly less likely to check food nutrition labels for nutrients than those with no/mild NVP, whereas the likelihood of checking calories was not significantly different between the groups. A previous review showed that women with NVP tended to exhibit food aversions and cravings [35]. In the present study, cravings for noodles and juice were consistent with the results of previous studies, whereas aversions to certain foods such as eggs, tea, some meat, and vegetables were not observed in other studies [11,12,35]. This inconsistency may have occurred due to differences in NVP period or country. Furthermore, >90% of the participants prepared meals themselves, and women with moderate/severe NVP had food cravings. Therefore, they may not be able to afford to choose their meals based on nutrition labels and may prefer foods that are easier to cook such as noodles. In Japan, a variety of frozen foods and pre-packed foods are sold. They also contain various ingredients such as vegetables; therefore, women with NVP may be able to have vegetables. Moreover, pickled vegetables in Japan taste salty, not sour. Hormonal changes during pregnancy have an impact on taste function, less salty intensity, while sour and sweet does not change [36]. This difference may be a reason for vegetable intake.
This study is the first to evaluate differences in dietary intake focusing on NVP during the second trimester. Although a relative comparison of nutritional intake levels may have been conducted, the absolute amount of nutrient intake remains unclear. Clinical staff should apply caution regarding sufficient nutrient intake during pregnancy, as pregnant women require more amounts of certain nutrients than they did before pregnancy [7].
For all participants in our study, the total GWG, first-trimester GWG, and second-trimester GWG were 9.9, 0.3, and 4.1 kg, respectively. Compared with the participants in a previous large cohort study in Japan, in our study, the proportion of the participants in the pre-pregnancy BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 (normal weight) group were almost similar; however, they were slightly lower in the <18.5 (underweight) group and higher in the 25.0–29.9 (overweight) and ≥30.0 kg/m2 (obese) groups. Categorizing the participants into pre-pregnancy BMI groups ensured that the impact of pre-pregnancy BMI was adjusted for. The total, first, and second trimester GWG were slightly smaller in our study than those reported in previous studies, except in the pre-pregnant BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2 (obese) group [37]. This may have occurred because of the higher age of the participants of this study than that of the participants of previous studies. The higher the age, the smaller the GWG, except in the pre-pregnant BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2 (obese) group [37].
Women with moderate/severe NVP had a smaller total GWG than those with no/mild NVP, and only women in the pre-pregnancy BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 (normal weight) group had significantly smaller GWG in the first and second trimesters. A previous study in Norway showed that vomiting during early pregnancy and pre-pregnancy BMI ≥ 18.5 kg/m2 was associated with a smaller total GWG, whereas no significance was observed for pre-pregnancy BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (underweight) [12]. Another study conducted in China revealed an association between a lower GWG and severe NVP during the first trimester [11]. Regarding the pre-pregnancy BMI <18.5 (underweight) and 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 (normal weight) groups, the results were consistent with those of previous studies, while inconsistencies were observed for the 25.0–29.9 (overweight) and ≥30.0 kg/m2 (obese) groups, possibly due to the small sample size in the present study compared with those in previous studies.
The GWG increase rate was significantly smaller in the moderate/severe NVP group than in the no/mild NVP group during the first trimester, around 12 weeks. Significance was only observed in the pre-pregnancy BMI 18.5–24.9 (normal weight) group. As NVP peaks during the first trimester and improves as gestational age progresses [1], women with moderate/severe NVP during the second trimester may experience more severe NVP than those with no/mild NVP during the second trimester. Although NVP severity during the first trimester was not observed in this study, the association between the smaller GWG in the first trimester and moderate/severe NVP in the second trimester may be explained. There was no significant difference in the rate of GWG increase in the second trimester between the NVP groups. This implies that, even though women who experienced moderate/severe NVP during the second trimester had a lower rate of GWG increase in the first trimester, they could catch up from the second trimester. However, because of the lower rate of GWG increase in the first trimester, the total GWG was slightly lower in the moderate/severe NVP group than in the no/mild NVP group. The impact seemed relatively small, so the proportion of patients with insufficient GWG was not significantly different between the two groups.
In this study, for all the participants, the median (Q1–Q3) birth weight and delivery week were 3020.0 (2752.0–3288.0) g, and 39.0 (38.0–40.0), respectively. The rates of low birth weight and preterm birth were 7.0% and 8.1%, respectively. Although birth weight and delivery week were almost similar to those reported in a previous study and a survey conducted in Japan, the rate of low birth weight was lower and that of preterm birth was higher (8.1% and 4.6–4.7%, respectively) in our study [16,38]. This inconsistency may be because our study was conducted at university hospitals and the patients were more likely to be at high risk. Additionally, compared with the previous large cohort study in Japan, the proportion of the pre-pregnancy BMI was slightly lower for the BMI <18.5 (underweight) group, and higher for the 25.0–29.9 (overweight) and ≥30.0 kg/m2 (obese) groups. The previous study showed that women with a pre-pregnancy BMI <18.5 have higher odds of the incidence of low birth weight than those with 25.0–29.9 and ≥30.0 kg/m2 [39].
Inconsistent with a previous study, no significant association was found between moderate/severe NVP during pregnancy and low birth weight or preterm birth in this study. Regarding low birth weight, a large cohort study conducted in Norway showed that women who experienced only nausea during early pregnancy had a lower risk of low birth weight than women without symptoms [15]. A large cohort study conducted in Japan revealed that women who experienced only nausea in the first 12 weeks had a lower risk of preterm birth than those who did not experience NVP [16]. These inconsistencies may have occurred because of the differences in NVP category, the presence of NVP symptoms only [15], and the presence of NVP symptoms and whether they could eat [16]. However, the frequency of these symptoms varies among pregnant women [40]. Additionally, to consider low birth weight and preterm birth as outcomes, a study with a larger sample size is required.
This study had several limitations. First, selection bias was presumed to occur. Specifically, women with severe NVP or poor mental health were less likely to answer the questionnaire. To minimize bias, the questionnaire was divided into two parts to reduce the burden on the participants; thus, the current study had a high response rate. Second, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 infection period, which has had an enormous impact on lifestyle. As the participants possibly had limitations in going out, their manner of eating varied dramatically. Moreover, people are becoming more conscious of their health. Although this study may have been affected by COVID-19, the data have valuable implications for after-COVID-19 lifestyle.
As for the background of the participants, they had a higher median age and higher education than the survey conducted in Japan [41,42] whereas the household income and the proportion of primipara and pre-pregnancy BMI were almost consistent [25,41,43]. This may have occurred because the study was mainly conducted at university hospitals in the urban area and the participants were more likely to be at high risk. This suggests that the participants were more conscious of their health, which may have led to efficient dietary intake, even in participants with moderate/severe NVP. Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Although the population of Yamagata is smaller than the other three cities, and the participants from Yamagata were less educated and had less household income than those from the other three cities, the inclusion of Yamagata may slightly improve the representativeness of the current study.
In this study, NVP severity was only assessed by the self-reported questionnaire and objective measurements were missing. This is one of the limitations of this study. However, the severity of NVP is associated with the quality of life of pregnant women; focusing on NVP not as severe as hospitalization for HG was necessary [24]. As for the other possible causes of nausea and vomiting, none of the participants had cholecystitis liver, biliary tract diseases, and drug abuse according to the medical records. In this study, the information for gastroenteritis could not be obtained, which is one of the limitations. However, focusing on NVP during the past month may minimize the effect.
Moreover, information on antiemetics use could not be obtained in this study. The use of antiemetics may relieve NVP severity, and the participants using antiemetics can be categorized as the less severe NVP group than those who did not use antiemetics. The participants using antiemetics may experience more severe NVP when the effect of the medicine wears off. However, regardless of the antiemetics use, NVP severity, measured by the frequency of the symptoms experienced by the participants during the past month, was the focus of this study.
Regarding the BDHQ, energy intake measured using this tool has been reported to have low validity, and the dietary intake of women with NVP is likely to be overestimated [29,34]. The energy-adjusted intakes of macronutrients, micronutrients, and food groups, which were validated in a previous study, was used to minimize this influence. In addition, some of the questions included in the questionnaire were about past events; thus, recall bias is another limitation.
Although this study had some limitations, it is the first to reveal whether NVP severity during the second trimester is associated with dietary intake, lower GWG, low birth weight, and preterm birth. The study was conducted in four regions in Japan; thus, it has high generalizability.

5. Conclusions

The proportion of women with NVP during the second semester was more than 40% in this study, while the proportion of those with severe NVP was 17.4%. Although no differences in energy-adjusted macronutrient and micronutrient intakes were observed, the clinical staff should still apply caution regarding sufficient nutrient intake during pregnancy based on the dietary intake of women with NVP during the second trimester. Further research is required regarding the effects of NVP on mental health during the second trimester.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.N., M.H., Y.U., K.Y., N.H. and E.S.; Methodology, N.N., M.H., Y.U., K.Y., N.H. and E.S.; Validation, N.N.; Formal analysis, N.N.; Investigation, N.N., M.H., Y.U., K.Y., N.H., E.S., K.N., M.T., R.O., S.A., M.F., M.M., Y.S. (Yoshiko Suetsugu) and Y.S. (Yoko Sato); Data curation, N.N., K.N., M.T., R.O., S.A., M.F., M.M., Y.S. (Yoshiko Suetsugu) and Y.S. (Yoko Sato); Writing—original draft preparation, N.N.; Writing—review and editing, M.H., Y.U., K.Y., N.H., E.S., S.S., K.N., M.T., R.O., S.A., M.F., M.M., Y.S. (Yoshiko Suetsugu) and Y.S. (Yoko Sato); Visualization, N.N.; Supervision, M.H.; Project administration, M.H.; Funding acquisition, M.H., S.S., M.F., M.M., Y.S. (Yoshiko Suetsugu) and N.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (grant numbers 19H03940, 22H03399, and 19K22741).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tokyo (No. 2019318-(7)) and the Ethics Review Board for Clinical Research of the Kyushu University Medical District Department (No. 2021-92).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are not publicly available. These will be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are deeply grateful to all participants and hospital staff for their cooperation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the study design; collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; writing of the manuscript; or decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Bustos, M.; Venkataramanan, R.; Caritis, S.; Auton, N. Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy—What’s New? HHS Public Access Author Manuscr. 2018, 202, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Liu, C.; Zhao, G.; Qiao, D.; Wang, L.; He, Y.; Zhao, M.; Fan, Y.; Jiang, E. Emerging Progress in Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum: Challenges and Opportunities. Front. Med. 2022, 8, 809270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lacroix, R.; Eason, E.; Melzack, R. Nausea and Vomiting during Pregnancy: A Prospective Study of Its Frequency, Intensity, and Patterns of Change. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000, 182, 931–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sierra, H.; Cordova, M.; Chen, C.-S.J.; Rajadhyaksha, M. Confocal Imaging–Guided Laser Ablation of Basal Cell Carcinomas: An Ex Vivo Study. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2015, 135, 612–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Lacasse, A.; Rey, E.; Ferreira, E.; Morin, C.; Bérard, A. Epidemiology of Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy: Prevalence, Severity, Determinants, and the Importance of Race/Ethnicity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Birkeland, E.; Stokke, G.; Tangvik, R.J.; Torkildsen, E.A.; Boateng, J.; Wollen, A.L.; Albrechtsen, S.; Flaatten, H.; Trovik, J. Norwegian PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) Identifies Patients with Hyperemesis Gravidarum and Poor Nutritional Intake: A Prospective Cohort Validation Study. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0119962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese. 2020. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10904750/000586553.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2023). (In Japanese)
  8. Suzuki, H.; Hamada, H.; Matsuzaki, M.; Ota, E. Analysis of Differences in Lifestyle and Nutrition Intake of Women in Each Stage of Pregnancy. Bull. St. Luke’s Int. Univ. 2022, 8, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Latva-Pukkila, U.; Isolauri, E.; Laitinen, K. Dietary and Clinical Impacts of Nausea and Vomiting during Pregnancy. J. Human Nutr. Diet. 2010, 23, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Crozier, S.R.; Inskip, H.M.; Godfrey, K.M.; Cooper, C.; Robinson, S.M. Nausea and Vomiting in Early Pregnancy: Effects on Food Intake and Diet Quality. Matern. Child. Nutr. 2017, 13, e12389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, S.; Zhao, A.; Lan, H.; Li, P.; Mao, S.; Szeto, I.M.-Y.; Jiang, H.; Zhang, Y. Nausea and Vomiting during Early Pregnancy among Chinese Women and Its Association with Nutritional Intakes. Nutrients 2023, 15, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chortatos, A.; Haugen, M.; Iversen, P.; Vikanes, Å.; Magnus, P.; Veierød, M. Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: Associations with Maternal Gestational Diet and Lifestyle Factors in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. BJOG 2013, 120, 1642–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Goldstein, R.F.; Abell, S.K.; Ranasinha, S.; Misso, M.; Boyle, J.A.; Black, M.H.; Li, N.; Hu, G.; Corrado, F.; Rode, L.; et al. Association of Gestational Weight Gain With Maternal and Infant Outcomes. JAMA 2017, 317, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Enomoto, K.; Aoki, S.; Toma, R.; Fujiwara, K.; Sakamaki, K.; Hirahara, F. Pregnancy Outcomes Based on Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index in Japanese Women. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chortatos, A.; Haugen, M.; Iversen, P.O.; Vikanes, Å.; Eberhard-Gran, M.; Bjelland, E.K.; Magnus, P.; Veierød, M.B. Pregnancy Complications and Birth Outcomes among Women Experiencing Nausea Only or Nausea and Vomiting during Pregnancy in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015, 15, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Mitsuda, N.; Eitoku, M.; Yamasaki, K.; Sakaguchi, M.; Yasumitsu-Lovell, K.; Maeda, N.; Fujieda, M.; Suganuma, N. Nausea and Vomiting during Pregnancy Associated with Lower Incidence of Preterm Births: The Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018, 18, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Japan, Pregnancy, Eating, and Activity, Cohort Study (J-Peach Study). Available online: https://j-birthcohorts.net/cohorts/jpeach-study/ (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  18. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Population of Cites. In Japan Statistical Yearbook 2023; Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications: Tokyo, Japan, 2023; pp. 49–59. [Google Scholar]
  19. Itakura, A.; Shoji, S.; Shigeru, A.; Kotaro, F.; Junichi, H.; Hironobu, H.; Kamei, Y.; Eiji, K.; Shintaro, M.; Mamoru, M.; et al. Guidelines for obstetrical practice in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2020 edition. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2023, 49, 5–53. [Google Scholar]
  20. Einarson, T.R.; Piwko, C.; Koren, G. Prevalence of Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy in the USA: A Meta-Analysis. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 20, 163–170. [Google Scholar]
  21. Morokuma, S.; Shimokawa, M.; Kato, K.; Sanefuji, M.; Shibata, E.; Tsuji, M.; Senju, A.; Kawamoto, T.; Kusuhara, K.; Saito, H.; et al. Relationship between Hyperemesis Gravidarum and Small-for-Gestational-Age in the Japanese Population: The Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016, 16, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Koren, G.; Piwko, C.; Ahn, E.; Boskovic, R.; Maltepe, C.; Einarson, A.; Navioz, Y.; Ungar, W.J. Validation Studies of the Pregnancy Unique-Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) Scores. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2005, 25, 241–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hada, A.; Minatani, M.; Wakamatsu, M.; Koren, G.; Kitamura, T. The Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE-24): Configural, Measurement, and Structural Invariance between Nulliparas and Multiparas and across Two Measurement Time Points. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lacasse, A.; Rey, E.; Ferreira, E.; Morin, C.; Bérard, A. Validity of a Modified Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE) Scoring Index to Assess Severity of Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008, 198, e1–e71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Summary Report of Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions. 2019. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hss/dl/report_gaikyo_2019.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2023). (In Japanese)
  26. Outline of Revision of Dietary Guidelines for Women during Pregnancy and Postpartum. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/000776927.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  27. Kobayashi, S.; Murakami, K.; Sasaki, S.; Okubo, H.; Hirota, N.; Notsu, A.; Fukui, M.; Date, C. Comparison of Relative Validity of Food Group Intakes Estimated by Comprehensive and Brief-Type Self-Administered Diet History Questionnaires against 16 d Dietary Records in Japanese Adults. Public Health Nutr. 2011, 14, 1200–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kobayashi, S.; Honda, S.; Murakami, K.; Sasaki, S.; Okubo, H.; Hirota, N.; Notsu, A.; Fukui, M.; Date, C. Both Comprehensive and Brief Self-Administered Diet History Questionnaires Satisfactorily Rank Nutrient Intakes in Japanese Adults. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 22, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ogawa, K.; Jwa, S.-C.; Kobayashi, M.; Morisaki, N.; Sago, H.; Fujiwara, T. Validation of a Food Frequency Questionnaire for Japanese Pregnant Women with and without Nausea and Vomiting in Early Pregnancy. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 27, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Takei, H.; Shiraishi, M.; Matsuzaki, M.; Haruna, M. Factors Related to Vegetable Intake among Pregnant Japanese Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Appetite 2019, 132, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Abe, E.; Kobayashi, M. Association of Nausea and Vomiting with Nutritional Intake and Gestational Weight Gain during Pregnancy. Int. J. Human Cult. Stud. 2020, 2020, 380–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kugahara, T.; Ohashi, K. Characteristics of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnant Japanese Women. Nurs. Health Sci. 2006, 8, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shiraishi, M.; Haruna, M.; Matsuzaki, M.; Murayama, R.; Sasaki, S. Pre-Pregnancy BMI, Gestational Weight Gain and Body Image Are Associated with Dietary under-Reporting in Pregnant Japanese Women. J. Nutr. Sci. 2018, 7, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Patil, C.L.; Abrams, E.T.; Steinmetz, A.R.; Young, S.L. Appetite Sensations and Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: An Overview of the Explanations. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2012, 51, 394–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Choo, E.; Dando, R. The Impact of Pregnancy on Taste Function. Chem. Senses 2017, 42, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morisaki, N.; Piedvache, A.; Morokuma, S.; Nakahara, K.; Ogawa, M.; Kato, K.; Sanefuji, M.; Shibata, E.; Tsuji, M.; Shimono, M.; et al. Gestational Weight Gain Growth Charts Adapted to Japanese Pregnancies Using a Bayesian Approach in a Longitudinal Study: The Japan Environment and Children’s Study. J. Epidemiol. 2023, 33, JE20210049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Statistics on Birth. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/tokusyu/syussyo07/dl/02.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2023). (In Japanese)
  39. Liu, L.; Ma, Y.; Wang, N.; Lin, W.; Liu, Y.; Wen, D. Maternal Body Mass Index and Risk of Neonatal Adverse Outcomes in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019, 19, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Ellilä, P.; Laitinen, L.; Nurmi, M.; Rautava, P.; Koivisto, M.; Polo-Kantola, P. Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy: A Study with Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis Questionnaire. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018, 230, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Information Policy and Industrial Relations, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Vital Statistics of Japan. 2019. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hw/vs01.html (accessed on 19 July 2023).
  42. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Division Population Census 2020 Population Census Detailed Sample Tabulation. Available online: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/dbview?sid=0003464354 (accessed on 19 July 2023).
  43. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. BMI Distribution by National Health and Nutrition Survey. Available online: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/dbview?sid=0003224180 (accessed on 18 July 2023). (In Japanese)
Nutrients 15 03383 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the participants.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the participants.
Nutrients 15 03383 g001
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.
All
(n = 825)		No and Mild
(n = 682)		Moderate and
Severe
(n = 143)		p
Median (Q1–Q3) or n (%)Median (Q1–Q3) or n (%)Median (Q1–Q3) or n (%)
Gestational week while answering the questionnaire22.0(19.0–24.0)22.0(19.0–24.0)20.0(18.0–23.0)<0.001 a
Age (n = 790)34.0(31.0–38.0)34.0(31.0–38.0)34.0(31.0–38.0)0.959 a
Parity
Primipara432(52.4)352(51.6)80(55.9)0.358 b
Multipara393(47.6)330(48.4)63(44.1)
Number of fetuses
Singleton797(96.6)656(96.2)141(98.6)0.204 b
Multiple28(3.4)26(3.8)2(1.4)
Pre-pregnancy BMI, kg/m2 (n = 822)
<18.5114(13.9)97(14.3)17(12.0)0.150 b
18.5–24.9601(73.1)502(73.8)99(69.7)
25.0–29.973(8.9)57(8.4)16(11.3)
≥30.034(4.1)24(3.5)10(7.0)
Marital status
Married810(98.2)673(98.7)137(95.8)0.031 b
Not married15(1.8)9(1.3)6(4.2)
Education
Junior high/High school100(12.1)81(11.9)19(13.3)0.468 b
Vocational training school
or junior college		207(25.1)165(24.2)42(29.4)
College445(53.9)373(54.7)72(50.3)
Postgraduate73(8.8)63(9.2)10(7.0)
Work
Yes533(64.6)435(63.8)98(68.5)0.292 b
No292(35.4)247(36.2)45(31.5)
Household income
<7 million yen402(48.7)330(48.4)72(50.3)0.713 b
≥7 million yen423(51.3)352(51.6)71(49.7)
Smoking during pregnancy
No796(96.5)654(95.9)142(99.3)0.045 b
Yes29(3.5)28(4.1)1(0.7)
City
Yamagata159(19.3)139(20.4)20(14.0)0.127 b
Tokyo292(35.4)239(35.0)53(37.1)
Osaka223(27.0)187(27.4)36(25.2)
Fukuoka151(18.3)117(17.2)34(23.8)
a Mann–Whitney U test; b Chi-square test. Q1 for the 25th quartile and Q3 for the 75th quartile. BMI, body mass index.
Table
Table 2. The energy intakes, body-mass-adjusted intakes of macronutrients and energy-adjusted intakes of the micronutrients.
Table 2. The energy intakes, body-mass-adjusted intakes of macronutrients and energy-adjusted intakes of the micronutrients.
All
(n = 755)		No and Mild
(n = 634)		Moderate and
Severe (n = 121)		p
Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)		Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)		Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)
Energy (kcal)1494.0
(1278.1–1767.3)		1493.2
(1279.7–1765.8)		1501.0
(1250.3–1779.5)		0.902
Protein
(g/kg of body mass)		1.0 (0.8–1.2)1.0 (0.8–1.2)1.0 (0.8–1.1)0.573
Magnesium (mg/1000 kcal)122.6 (107.3–138.9)122.7 (107.1–139.5)121.6 (108.2–136.5)0.944
Iron (mg/1000 kcal)3.9 (3.4–4.5)3.8 (3.3–4.5)3.9 (3.4–4.5)0.797
Zinc (mg/1000 kcal)4.4 (4.1–4.8)4.4 (4.1–4.8)4.4 (4.0–4.8)0.607
Copper (mg/1000 kcal)0.6 (0.5–0.7)0.6 (0.5–0.7)0.6 (0.6–0.7)0.355
Vitamin B1 (mg/1000 kcal)0.4 (0.4–0.5)0.4 (0.4–0.5)0.4 (0.4–0.5)0.666
Vitamin B2 (mg/1000 kcal)0.7 (0.6–0.8)0.7 (0.6–0.8)0.6 (0.5–0.7)0.179
Vitamin B6 (mg/1000 kcal)0.6 (0.5–0.7)0.6 (0.5–0.7)0.6 (0.5–0.7)0.766
Vitamin B12 (mg/1000 kcal)3.4 (2.5–4.8)3.4 (2.5–4.7)3.6 (2.5–5.4)0.215
Folate (mg/1000 kcal)154.3 (126.1–189.5)155.8 (124.9–190.9)150.9 (127.9–180.7)0.542
Vitamin C (mg/1000 kcal)56.5 (41.0–73.7)56.5 (41.2–73.1)57.0 (40.4–77.8)0.635
Mann–Whitney U test was performed. Intakes of energy, protein, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, folate, vitamin C were estimated using a brief-type diet history questionnaire (BDHQ). Q1, 25th quartile; Q3, 75th quartile; E, energy.
Table
Table 3. The estimated energy-adjusted intakes of the food groups (g/1000 kcal).
Table 3. The estimated energy-adjusted intakes of the food groups (g/1000 kcal).
All
(n = 755)		No and Mild
(n = 634)		Moderate and Severe
(n = 121)		p
Median (Q1–Q3)Median (Q1–Q3)Median (Q1–Q3)
Rice158.7 (104.2–201.3)160.9 (104.9–202.3)148.3 (101.1–200.6)0.372
Bread19.6 (11.7–33.9)19.8 (11.6–33.9)19.3 (12.3–33.6)0.670
Noodles38.4 (24.2–59.8)36.9 (23.7–56.7)48.6 (28.4–72.9)<0.001
Bean28.1 (16.1–43.7)28.8 (15.9–44.8)26.7 (16.8–38.8)0.302
Vegetables110.6 (80.6–151.9)111.2 (81.7–154.0)106.1 (73.9–141.3)0.133
Pickled vegetables2.1 (0.0–6.4)2.0 (0.0–6.0)3.1 (0.8–7.9)0.013
Fruit44.4 (0.0–39.9)43.9 (0.0–39.4)45.4 (0.0–42.5)0.576
Seaweed3.0 (1.4–7.0)3.0 (1.4–7.0)3.1 (1.4–7.0)0.965
Red meat20.2 (15.7–26.1)20.1 (15.5–26.0)20.8 (16.1–26.2)0.727
Processed meat20.2 (15.7–26.1)20.1 (15.5–26.0)20.8 (16.1–26.2)0.727
Egg17.8 (12.3–28.6)17.5 (12.3–28.1)18.9 (12.6–29.9)0.489
Alcohol0.0 (0.0–0.0)0.0 (0.0–0.0)0.0 (0.0–0.0)0.620
Tea14.0 (0.0–56.7)12.7 (0.0–53.7)19.3 (0.0–76.4)0.031
Juice42.7 (11.4–89.7)36.9 (10.4–85.4)65.7 (23.2–122.8)<0.001
Coffee6.5 (0.0–39.9)6.3 (0.0–39.4)6.8 (0.0–42.5)0.612
Mann–Whitney U test was performed. Energy-adjusted intakes of rice, bread, noodles, beans, vegetables, pickled vegetables, fruit, seaweed, red meat, processed meat, eggs, alcohol, tea, juice, and coffee were estimated using a brief-type diet history questionnaire (BDHQ). Q1, 25th quartile and Q3, 75th quartile.
Table
Table 4. Dietary habits.
Table 4. Dietary habits.
All
(n = 825)		No and Mild
(n = 682)		Moderate and Severe
(n = 143)		p
Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)		Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)		Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)
Number of meals
including snack		4.0(3.0–4.0)4.0(3.0–4.0)4.0(3.0–4.0)0.210 a
Skip breakfast
Yes147(17.8)110(16.1)37(25.9)0.008 b
No678(82.2)572(83.9)106(74.1)
Skipped meal (weekday)
Yes199(24.1)150(22.0)49(34.3)0.003 b
No626(75.9)532(78.0)94(65.7)
Check label: nutrients
Yes496(60.1)421(61.7)75(52.4)0.048 b
No329(39.9)261(38.3)68(47.6)
Check label: calories
Yes495(60.0)417(61.1)78(54.5)0.159 b
No330(40.0)265(38.9)65(45.5)
Prepare meals
by self692(92.1)575(91.9)117(93.6)0.589 b
the others59(7.9)51(8.1)8(6.4)
a Mann–Whitney U test; b Chi-square test. Information on the number of meals, skipped meals on weekdays, nutritional label checks, and who prepares the meal was obtained from the questionnaire. Q1, 25th quartile; Q3, 75th quartile.
Table
Table 5. GWG, birth weight, and delivery week.
Table 5. GWG, birth weight, and delivery week.
AllNo and MildModerate and Severep
Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)		Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)		Median (Q1–Q3)
or n (%)
Total GWG (n = 684) (kg)9.9(7.8–12.0)10.0(7.9–12.1)9.0(6.4–11.4)0.007 a
Pre–pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (n = 94)10.4(8.4–12.0)10.0(8.7–12.0)9.8(7.5–12.0)0.415 a
18.5–24.9 (n = 500)10.1(8.0–12.1)10.1(8.1–12.3)9.6(7.2–11.4)0.050 a
25.0–29.9 (n = 58)7.6(4.4–11.6)7.8(3.2–11.1)5.8(3.3–10.1)0.824 a
≥30.0 (n = 30)6.7(2.8–8.7)7.7(2.6–10.7)5.2(3.5–8.0)0.689 a
GWG (kg)
1st trimester
(around 12 week, n = 603)		0.3(−1.0–1.6)0.5(−0.8–1.7)−0.3(−2.0–0.9)<0.001 a
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (n = 84)0.7(−0.4–1.7)0.8(−0.4–1.8)0.4(−1.0–1.1)0.171 a
18.5–24.9 (n = 434)0.4(−0.9–1.6)0.5(−0.8–1.7)−0.2(−1.8–0.9)0.003 a
25.0–29.9 (n = 53)−0.3(−2.8–1.8)−0.2(−2.9–2.1)−0.9(−3.2–1.0)0.273 a
≥30.0 (n = 30)−0.9(−3.7–0.4)−0.8(−4.0–0.4)−1.1(−3.1–1.6)0.722 a
2nd trimester
(around 24 week, n = 644)		4.1(2.1–6.0)4.1(2.4–6.0)3.4(0.7–5.6)0.002 a
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (n = 86)4.6(2.4–6.4)4.7(2.9–6.7)4.0(2.1–5.7)0.387 a
18.5–24.9 (n = 471)4.3(2.4–6.0)4.3(2.5–6.0)3.4(1.0–5.7)0.008 a
25.0–29.9 (n = 55)2.8(0.3–5.2)2.8(0.6–5.5)3.2(−0.4–5.6)0.862 a
≥30.0 (n = 30)0.6(−1.5–3.8)0.6(−1.8–3.6)0.0(−1.4–3.8)0.929 a
Insufficient GWG (n = 654)
Yes337(51.5)271(50.5)66.0(56.4)0.262 b
No317(48.5)266(49.5)51.0(43.6)
GWG increase rate (kg/week)
Through pregnancy (n = 684)0.26(0.20–0.31)0.26(0.21–0.32)0.24(0.17–0.30)0.009 a
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (n = 94)0.27(0.22–0.32)0.27(0.22–0.32)0.27(0.20–0.31)0.509 a
18.5–24.9 (n = 497)0.26(0.21–0.31)0.26(0.21–0.32)0.25(0.19–0.30)0.050 a
25.0–29.9 (n = 58)0.20(0.11–0.30)0.21(0.14–0.31)0.15(0.08–0.30)0.817 a
≥30.0 (n = 30)0.17(0.07–0.24)0.19(0.07–0.27)0.13(0.09–0.20)0.625 a
1st trimester
(around 12 week, n = 603)		0.03(−0.07–0.12)0.03(−0.06–0.13)−0.02(−0.15–0.08)<0.001 a
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (n = 84)0.05(−0.03–0.12)0.05(−0.03–0.13)0.03(−0.08–0.07)0.177 a
18.5–24.9 (n = 434)0.03(−0.07–0.12)0.04(−0.06–0.13)−0.01(−0.13–0.08)0.005 a
25.0–29.9 (n = 53)−0.03(−0.21–0.12)−0.01(−0.20–0.14)−0.08(−0.26–0.07)0.230 a
≥30.0 (n = 30)−0.07(−0.28–0.03)−0.06(−0.32–0.03)−0.11(−0.25–0.14)0.790 a
1st to 2nd trimester
(around 12–24 week, n = 566)		0.36(0.27–0.46)0.36(0.27–0.46)0.36(0.25–0.45)0.438 a
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (n = 76)0.41(0.29–0.48)0.41(0.30–0.49)0.40(0.28–0.46)0.678 a
18.5–24.9 (n = 407)0.37(0.28–0.46)0.36(0.28–0.46)0.38(0.28–0.46)0.572 a
25.0–29.9 (n = 51)0.29(0.20–0.41)0.28(0.17–0.42)0.29(0.22–0.42)0.559 a
≥30.0 (n = 30)0.24(0.05–0.38)0.30(0.09–0.46)0.20(0.04–0.25)0.114 a
Birth weight (n = 743) (g)3020.0(2752.0–3288.0)3024.0(2751.0–3291.0)3000.0(2751.5–3223.0)0.482 c
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<18.5 (n = 102)2950.0(2669.5–3206.5)2956.0(2657.5–3208.5)2880.0(2702.5–3086.5)0.956 c
18.5–24.9 (n = 541)3024.0(2766.0–3294.0)3024.0(2764.0–3307.0)3006.0(2772.0–3199.5)0.407 c
25.0–29.9 (n = 66)3112.0(2792.0–3314.3)3130.0(2822.5–3288.0)3000.0(2713.0–3339.8)0.782 c
≥30.0 (n = 32)3150.0(2868.0–3381.5)3146.0(2797.0–3350.0)3146.0(2797.0–3350.0)0.711 c
Low birth weight <2500 g
Yes48(7.0)36(6.5)12.0(9.5)0.246 b
No635(93.0)521(93.5)114.0(90.5)
Delivery week (n = 736)39.0(38.0–40.0)39.0(38.0–40.0)39.0(37.0–40.0)0.783 a
Preterm birth <37 w
Yes52(7.1)44(7.3)8.0(6.0)0.604 b
No684(92.9)558(92.7)126.0(94.0)
a Mann–Whitney U test, b Chi-square test, c t-test; Q1, 25th quartile and Q3, 75th quartile. GWG, Gestational weight gain; BMI, body mass index.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nishihara, N.; Haruna, M.; Usui, Y.; Yonezawa, K.; Hikita, N.; Sasagawa, E.; Nakano, K.; Tanaka, M.; Ohori, R.; Aoyama, S.; et al. Dietary Intake and Its Association with Birth Outcomes in Women with Nausea and Vomiting during the Second Trimester of Pregnancy: A Prospective Cohort Study in Japan. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3383. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15153383

AMA Style

Nishihara N, Haruna M, Usui Y, Yonezawa K, Hikita N, Sasagawa E, Nakano K, Tanaka M, Ohori R, Aoyama S, et al. Dietary Intake and Its Association with Birth Outcomes in Women with Nausea and Vomiting during the Second Trimester of Pregnancy: A Prospective Cohort Study in Japan. Nutrients. 2023; 15(15):3383. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15153383

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nishihara, Nao, Megumi Haruna, Yuriko Usui, Kaori Yonezawa, Naoko Hikita, Emi Sasagawa, Keiko Nakano, Moeko Tanaka, Riko Ohori, Satoko Aoyama, and et al. 2023. "Dietary Intake and Its Association with Birth Outcomes in Women with Nausea and Vomiting during the Second Trimester of Pregnancy: A Prospective Cohort Study in Japan" Nutrients 15, no. 15: 3383. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15153383

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop