Understanding Preferences for Dietary Supplements and Fortified Food during Pregnancy: A Discrete Choice Experiment

ABSTRACT

Using a discrete choice experiment, we examine pregnant women’s preferences to determine the relative importance they place on product attributes when choosing between nutritionally fortified food and beverage products, and supplement tablets. The choice experiment was included in a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire completed by 857 pregnant Australian women. Latent class analysis identified four distinct consumer segments: ‘Nulliparous information seekers’ (42% of sample), ‘Lower-income milk-lovers’ (22%), ‘Older multiparous tablet users’ (16%), and ‘Young juice-lovers’ (20%). While nutrient levels were a strong driver of choice in the largest segment, over one-third of pregnant women were not influenced by levels of recommended nutrients (folate or iodine) in supplement products. Pregnancy supplements endorsed by a reputable government science agency were most appealing in three of the segments. The information gained regarding product preferences of different consumer segments can aid in targeting pregnant women and those planning pregnancy with more appropriate nutrition information, advice, and products.

KEYWORDS:

• Discrete choice experiment
• pregnancy
• dietary supplements
• nutrition recommendations
• functional food

Abbreviations

DCE: discrete choice experiment; NHMRC: National Health and Medical Research Council; DAA: Dietitians Association of Australia; CSIRO: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the women who participated in this study. Thanks also to Dr Terry Flynn for his assistance with the DCE design. The funding sources (including CSIRO and NHMRC) had no role in the study design; data collection, analysis, or interpretation; writing or submission of this manuscript. LM, WU, SJZ, and MM designed research. LM coordinated data collection. LM and EH analysed data. LM, WU, and EH interpreted data. LM wrote first draft of paper which was revised by all authors. LM had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. We applied the ‘sequence-determines-credit’ approach for the sequence of authors.

Disclosure statement

LM, WU, SJZ, and EH have nothing to disclose. MM reports personal fees and other from Fonterra, personal fees and other from Nestle, personal fees, and other from True Origins, outside the submitted work.

Sources of Support

This work was financially supported by the Women’s and Children’s Health Research Institute, University of Adelaide, National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval was obtained from the Women’s and Children’s Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/13/WCHN/32), and the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2013-016).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

¹ The CSIRO is well-known and respected by the Australian public; and is a trusted authority on nutrition as evidenced by the bestselling book, ‘The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet’ published in 2005.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Women’s and Children’s Health Research Institute;Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;National Health and Medical Research Council;University of Adelaide;