Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32525889›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Development and psychometric properties of maternal health literacy inventory in pregnancy.

Safoura Taheri, Mahmoud Tavousi, Zohre Momenimovahed, Ashraf Direkvand-Moghadam, Azita Tiznobaik, Zainab Suhrabi, Ziba Taghizadeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Development and Validation of the Breastfeeding Literacy Assessment Instrument (BLAI) for Obstetric Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Maternal health literacy and pregnancy outcomes in Afghanistan.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Safoura TaheriDepartment of Midwifery, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Mahmoud TavousiHealth Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-8629-1851
Zohre MomenimovahedDepartment of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
Ashraf Direkvand-MoghadamDepartment of Midwifery, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Azita TiznobaikDepartment of Midwifery, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Member of Mother and Child Care Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Hamadan, Iran.
Zainab SuhrabiDepartment of Midwifery, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Ziba TaghizadehDepartment of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-3390-1601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnancy is one of the most sensitive and important stages of women's life. Maternal health literacy is the key to achieving a healthy pregnancy. It also affects pregnancy outcomes by improving the quality of health care in this period. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of maternal health literacy inventory in pregnancy (MHELIP).

methodsThis sequential, exploratory and mixed study was carried out in two parts (qualitative study and psychometric evaluation of the tool) in Tehran in 2016-18. The first part involved a qualitative content analysis with a traditional approach using in-depth, semi-structured and personal interviews with 19 eligible pregnant women. Then, the pool of items extracted from the qualitative part was completed by reviewing the existing literature and tools. In the second part, the overlapping items were summarized and the tool was validated. In order to evaluate the construct validity, a cross-sectional study was conducted with the participation of 320 pregnant women. Data analysis was performed by SPSS-19 software using exploratory factor analysis and reliability tests (Cronbach's alpha and ICC).

resultsFindings of qualitative part produced a pool of 120 items that reached to 124 items after reviewing the literature. After confirming face and content validity by calculating CVI and CVR for each item, 53 items remained in the pool. Finally, the results of exploratory factor analysis confirmed a tool with 48 items in four factors, explaining 46.49% of the variance of total variables of the tool. Reliability of the tool was approved by Cronbach's alpha = 0.94 and test-retest with 2-weeks intervals, indicating an appropriate stability for the scale (ICC = 0.96). Finally, the tool was finalized with 48 items in 4 dimensions, including "Maternal Health Knowledge", "Maternal Health Information Search", "Maternal Health Information Assessment" and "Maternal Health Decision Making and Behavior".

conclusionThe designed tool is a multidimensional, reliable and validated scale for assessing maternal health literacy during pregnancy. This tool can be used to evaluate different aspects of maternal health literacy in pregnant women, which was prepared based on their experiences during a qualitative study.

Indexed as

PsychometricsAdolescentAdultFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaternal HealthMiddle AgedPregnancyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32525889
PMCPMC7289409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.