ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
Exploring Motivations Regarding Dietary Intake Intentions in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. 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.
- Decision-making behavior of blood glucose management and its influencing factors in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
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
Purpose: The maintenance of stable blood glucose levels in gestational diabetes patients depends on their ability to make scientific decisions. Decision-making ability is influenced by factors such as preferences, knowledge acquisition, and risk perceptions. At present, problems such as irrational dietary structure, difficulties in decision-making, and poor adherence still exist in clinical practice. The key to guiding gestational diabetes patients in developing their scientific decision-making abilities lies in identifying the weak key points that affect their decision-making abilities. There is a lack of validated tools to assess these patients' perceptions of dietary intake. In this study, we aimed to develop and validate the Dietary Intake Perceived Motivation Questionnaire for Patients with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus with the purpose of accurately identifying the obstacles encountered by gestational diabetes mellitus patients in the development of their scientific decision-making abilities. Patients and Methods: In this study, 304 individuals with gestational diabetes were recruited from a public hospital in Wuxi, China. The questionnaire was developed in 3 stages, consisting of questionnaire development, a pilot study, and a formal test, and the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were tested and confirmed. The content validity index and exploratory factor analysis were completed by expert correspondence to indicate the validity of the content and structure. In addition, Cronbach's α was used to evaluate the internal consistency of each item of the questionnaire, and Spearman-Brown analysis was used to analyze the split-half reliability. In addition to the questionnaire, the study participants were asked to complete a general information questionnaire that included items on various demographic factors such as age, week of gestation, and mode of conception. Results: The questionnaire was validated through principal component analysis, resulting in a 31-item questionnaire named the Dietary Intake Perceived Motivation Questionnaire for Patients with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. This questionnaire explained 86.267% of the variance and demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α= 0.929). Conclusion: Our study determined that the questionnaire serves as a valuable tool in evaluating the motivation behind dietary intake in gestational diabetes patients.
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.