The research paper that has been written seems to have a lot of information available at first glance but it seems that several areas are still lacking proper description within it. The main areas that are being explored within the paper is that of how early nutrition recommendations can help to understand the importance of nutrition during pregnancy and for children as well. The various recommendations that have been provided are the main focus of the research. The first thing that should be understood is that this paper relates directly to the field that is being studied which is Allied Health Sciences as it shows how nutrition can help be used as treatment so that various decisions like obesity, anaemia or loss of vitamins can be controlled.
The first thing that should be looked at within the paper is that though the introduction does provide a well-outlined area of what is going to be expected within the research there do not seem to be any research questions or hypotheses set out. Outline of a well-developed research question helps to define various competent that would be achieved within the paper. This might be the population that is being targeted or a clinical intervention that is being proposed. Within the research paper, there seems to be the identification of whom the population and also what the studied parameter is but not in the form of a question but rather general knowledge (Godfrey, D., & Brown, 2018).
The method that has been taken within the paper are both primary and secondary. For the primary data collection, the use of a systematic review was used through which various questions have been asked to several respondents to gather data. This consists of the Coordinator, Leaders of the Research Project Theme groups, and designated Integrators. All of these had asked questions to 4 target groups that had been set out. This primary method has been properly identified as it properly describes the characteristics of each of the target groups. However, the drawback here is that the questions which had been asked were not shown hence leaving a gap within the area of development. There use of secondary data collection was done as additional literature contributed by RDP members was used (Koletzk et al., 2019). There is not sufficient data that has been provided within the paper to back this up as it has not been properly defined.
Three key areas have been discussed within the paper which are Recommendations on Nutrition of pregnant women, breastfeeding women and preconception. One area that can be looked at is that every single one of the recommendations includes proper measuring of BMI should be done at every stage for women. Whether it be obesity or it is a low level of nutrition’s that are being received if proper BMI is measured and it is understood what the ideal weight of women is then according to it there will be nutrition that will be given. This has shown that providing a diet plan will help women to achieve a better outline of what can be the various arises for food management that could be done. The level of intake of food should be measured which is another area that was highlighted again and again hence showing that how many vitamins should be taken is properly understood. However, this should have been backed up with other authors as it would help to see whether this would be profitable or not.
The drawback that is present within the research is that only current data is being analysed and future aspects have not been taken into account. It seems that more focus is being put on foods that provide a healthy outcome. So, most people prefer this and it seems that this would be preferred by several pregnant women as well. This point should have been properly looked at within the work because nutrition is linked to the food that is consumed and not only the age or how much intake should be done (Dodd et al., 2018). It is hard for pregnant women to follow a strict diet because the level of their cravings can differ. This should have been linked to the amount of protein that was being given. Also, facts from WHO have been taken but there are also other organisations and healthcare providers that provide better programs that could have been looked at. Another area that has been let ignored is that other studies that are already present within the market should have been compared to see whether there was an area that was left missing within it (Koletzk et al., 2019). For example, Zelalem has already shown within their research that nutrition is necessary but a different country has been taken. Hence, a comparison between both of the countries could have been made showing how their findings were different from each other.
In all, it can be said that some effective points have been done within the research paper however it seems that there are major areas that need to be still covered. It is said within the research paper that there is too little of the information that is present within the paper and more could have been provided. Hence, it can be seen that though there is useful information within the paper there should have been added which could have increased the response of the work.