ArticlePeerJ2021
Development and validation of the Health Promoting Behaviour for Bloating (HPB-Bloat) scale.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Abdominal Bloating Social Support Scale.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2024Article
- Article
- A Theory Planned Behaviour of Study on Improving Abdominal Bloating among the Malays Population: A Qualitative Study.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth management strategies may help patients with abdominal bloating (AB), but there are currently no tools that measure behaviour and awareness. This study aimed to validate and verify the dimensionality of the newly-developed Health Promoting Behaviour for Bloating (HPB-Bloat) scale.
methodsBased on previous literature, expert input, and in-depth interviews, we generated new items for the HPB-Bloat. Its content validity was assessed by experts and pre-tested across 30 individuals with AB. Construct validity and dimensionality were first determined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Promax rotation analysis, and then using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsDuring the development stage, 35 items were generated for the HPB-Bloat, and were maintained following content validity assessment and pre-testing. One hundred and fifty-two participants (mean age of 31.27 years, 68.3% female) and 323 participants (mean age of 27.69 years, 59.4% male) completed the scale for EFA and CFA, respectively. Using EFA, we identified 20 items that we divided into five factors: diet (five items), health awareness (four items), physical activity (three items), stress management (four items), and treatment (four items). The total variance explained by the EFA model was 56.7%. The Cronbach alpha values of the five factors ranged between 0.52 and 0.81. In the CFA model, one problematic latent variable (treatment) was identified and three items were removed. In the final measurement model, four factors and 17 items fit the data well based on several fit indices (root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.044 and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) = 0.052). The composite reliability of all factors in the final measurement model was above 0.60, indicating acceptable construct reliability.
conclusionThe newly developed HPB-Bloat scale is valid and reliable when assessing the awareness of health-promoting behaviours across patients with AB. Further validation is needed across different languages and populations.
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.