Observational studyAppetite2016
Examination of the reliability and validity of the Mindful Eating Questionnaire in pregnant women.
Observational study in Appetite, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taking a closer look at mindful eating: incremental validity and importance of subfacets.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2022Article
- Maternal mindful eating as a target for improving metabolic outcomes in pregnant women with obesity.Frontiers in bioscience (Landmark edition) · 2021Observational
- Reliability and Validity of the Malay Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ-M) among Overweight and Obese Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Mindful Eating, General Mindful Awareness, and Acceptance as Predictors of Weight Loss.Mindfulness · 2020Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMindfulness is theorized to affect the eating behavior and weight of pregnant women, yet no measure has been validated during pregnancy.
methodsThis study qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated the reliability and validity of the Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ) in overweight and obese pregnant women. Participants completed focus groups and cognitive interviews. The MEQ was administered twice to measure test-retest reliability. The Eating Inventory (EI) and Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) were administered to assess convergent validity, and the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) assessed discriminant validity.
resultsParticipants were 20 ± 8 weeks gestation (mean ± SD), 30 ± 2 years old, and 55% were obese. The MEQ total score had good test-retest reliability (r = .85). The total score internal consistency reliability was poor (Cronbach's α = .56). The external cues subscale (ECS) was not internally consistent (α = .31). Other subscales ranged from α = .59-.68. When the ECS was excluded, the MEQ total score internal consistency was acceptable (α = .62). Convergent validity was supported by the MEQ total score (with and without ECS) correlating significantly with the MAAS and the EI disinhibition and hunger subscales. Discriminant validity of the MEQ was supported by the MEQ and NEWS total scores and subscales not being significantly correlated. The quantitative results were supported by the qualitative context and content analysis.
conclusionWith the exception of the ECS, the MEQ's reliability and validity was supported in pregnant women, and most of the subscales were more robust in pregnant women than in the original sample of healthy adults. The MEQ's use with overweight and obese pregnant women is supported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.