ArticleAtencion primaria
[ECoLaE: Validation of a questionnaire on breastfeeding knowledge and skills for Nursing].
Article in Atencion primaria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers and Facilitators for Exclusive Breastfeeding in Women's Biopsychosocial Spheres According to Primary Care Midwives in Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate the "Questionnaire on breastfeeding knowledge and skills" in Nurses (EcoLa).
designA validation study, with prior linguistic adaptation, according to the skills and training of the nurses. LOCATION: Cantabria.
participantsGeneral nurses, paediatrics specialists, and midwives from the Cantabrian Health Service, with responsibility for mother-child care. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The psychometric properties of the nursing version of ECoLa were evaluated. Internal consistency was measured using α-Cronbach for multiple choice and overall answer questions, and Kuder-Richardson's formula (KR20) for dichotomous response questions. Inter-observer concordance was measured using the kappa coefficient in items 18 and 21, and the test-retest reliability with 11 subjects using the intraclass correlation coefficient.
resultsThe mean score in the questionnaire was 21.15±4.67 points. There were no statistically significant differences as regards the gender or number of children. There was an association between the score obtained in the questionnaire and previous experience in lactation, and with the professional profile (midwife 24.23 points, paediatric nurse 21.20 points, and general nurse 20 points; P<.01). The internal consistency showed a KR20 of 0.802, and the α-Cronbach for multiple-choice questions was 0.719, and 0.866 for overall. Interobserver concordance for Item 18 had a kappa=0.6, for item 30 kappa=0.825), and for total score the kappa=0.856). The test-retest reliability overall score (CCI=0.856, 95% CI 0.55-0.96), and for question 30 (CCI=0.93, 95% CI 0.75-0.98).
conclusionsThe questionnaire scale has psychometric properties that make its use valid and reliable in the evaluation of the training of nursing professionals.
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.