Assessing Folic Acid Supplementation Adherence Among Pregnant Women in LMICs and its Impact on Neural Tube Defect Incidence: A Systematic Review Protocol

Background and Rationale

Neural tube defects (NTDs) remain a dreadful birth defect, with spina bifida and anencephaly among the most common types. While anencephaly is lethal and incompatible with life, open spina bifida, such as myelomeningocele, can be treated but not cured. This can lead to severe lifelong disability and, if untreated, death. (1)

Physical and psychological issues arise with the permanent disability from Spina bifida, necessitating continuous surgical and medical care. Globally, an estimated 300,000 babies are born with NTDs yearly. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), about 60,000 pregnancies affected by NTDs are euthanized following prenatal diagnosis, while another 60,000 result in stillbirths. (1) Salari et al., 2021 estimate the average prevalence rate of spina bifida and anencephaly as 20 cases per 100,000 live births worldwide. (2) There exists a paucity of data on NTDs in the LMICs; however, Yacob et al. (2021) showed that countries with the highest years lived in disability and death rates due to NTDs were the lowest gross domestic product (GDP) quartile. (3)

Surgical treatment for neural tube defects in LMICs is riddled with complexity, high costs, and the limits of a low neurosurgical and multidisciplinary workforce. (4–6) Public health programs educating women of reproductive age of folic acid importance are almost absent, hence the rising trend of NTDs.

A significant proportion of pregnant women globally do not attain the recommended daily intake of 0.4mg of Folic acid for six months (7). Folate deficiency places these pregnant women at a higher risk of having newborns with NTDs.

However, among other factors, such as forgetting to take folate, that may hinder the broader adoption of folic acid supplementation, pregnant women in LMICs often face numerous health challenges. These include further nutrient deficiencies, inadequate healthcare access, and poor or non-existent prenatal care, which prevent the early diagnosis or prevention of NTDs in their newborns(8).

This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the evidence of folic acid supplementation adherence among pregnant women in LMICs and its effect on NTD incidence. We define adherence as the degree to which a patient complies with treatment recommendations made by a healthcare professional.

By conducting this review, we seek to address significant gaps in the literature and inform public health policies and interventions targeted at improving maternal and child health outcomes. The significance of this systematic review lies in its potential to provide valuable insights into the overall effectiveness of this intervention and its potential to mitigate adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Research Questions

1. What is the current folic acid supplementation adherence level among pregnant women in LMICs?

2. How does compliance with folic acid supplementation among pregnant women affect the incidence of neural tube defects in LMICs?

3. What predictors influence adherence to folic acid supplementation among pregnant women in LMICs?

Objectives and Outcome Measures

Population

Pregnant women living in LMICs.

Intervention/Exposure

Folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.

Comparator

Pregnant women who take folic acid supplementation compared to those who do not.

Outcome

Methods

Data Management, Selection of Sources of Evidence, and Data Charting

We will devise a comprehensive search strategy using keywords and MeSH terms related to the topic from electronic databases such as PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase. We will exclude literature search duplicates. Using Rayyan software, initial screening will involve the assessment of titles and abstracts to exclude irrelevant or unrelated studies. Subsequently, full-text articles of potentially eligible studies will be retrieved for detailed evaluation.

Two reviewers will independently screen a set of full-text articles and perform data extraction using a predesigned proforma. Any reviewer disagreements will be resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer if necessary.

The process will be documented in a transparent manner using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. The final selection of studies will form the basis for the systematic review’s subsequent data extraction and analysis phases.

Subgroup Analysis

If we find any significant heterogeneity, we will conduct a subgroup analysis based on geographic region, study design, and adherence measurement methods. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to test the robustness of results by excluding studies with a high risk of bias or low methodological quality. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on study design, geographic location, folic acid supplementation initiation timing, and the presence or absence of TORCHES syndrome infection in the study population.

Evaluation of Heterogeneity

We anticipate that studies with different observational designs may exhibit varying degrees of heterogeneity. We will utilize statistical tests such as Cochran’s Q and I² statistics to quantify heterogeneity across studies. A significant Q test or a high I² value suggests substantial heterogeneity.

Strength of Body Evidence

The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, considering factors such as study design, risk of bias, consistency, precision, and publication bias. Two reviewers will assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome independently. A third reviewer will be available to resolve conflicts in the event of conflicts. We will document each comparison by outcome, including explanations for all decisions on the GRADE Summary of Findings tables. We will exclude studies with a high risk of bias or those with methodological limitations.

Risk of Bias (Quality) Assessment

Two independent reviewers will meticulously assess within-study and cross-study biases for each outcome measure. The quality of observational studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). At the same time, the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be evaluated through The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Only studies that achieve an NOS score of ≥4 will be deemed to possess a low risk of bias and, therefore, considered eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis.

To evaluate the impact of potential publication bias on the outcomes, funnel plots and statistical tests (e.g., Egger’s test) will be employed. Studies with small sample sizes or those that may not have been published due to non-significant results will be considered.

Measurement of Effect

We will analyze data from each group: pregnant women who adhered to Folic acid supplementation versus those who did not. The odds ratios for each group will be calculated to determine the effect on the incidence of NTDs. We will compute the mean or standard mean difference for continuous, numerical, and categorical variables. Additionally, multivariate analyses will be conducted to control for potential confounding factors, such as risk of NTD recurrence, dietary intake of folate-rich foods, and patient characteristics.

Study Limitations

Despite our comprehensive research methodology, notable limitations warrant consideration. First, publication bias is inevitable, as studies with statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than studies reporting less significant outcomes.

Moreover, the possibility of language bias exists, as our review exclusively includes English-language publications, potentially omitting relevant research published in other languages. Additionally, it is pertinent to acknowledge the potential for bias within the studies included in this systematic review, which could potentially influence our study’s overall outcomes and findings.

Ethics and Dissemination

Since the review involves the analysis of existing studies, it does not involve direct contact with human participants. We plan to submit this systematic review for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed public health or maternal and child health journal. Also, we will present the findings at relevant academic conferences, both nationally and internationally, to reach a diverse audience of researchers and practitioners in the maternal and child health field.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.