Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38987917›Full record

ArticleWomen's health nursing (Seoul, Korea)2024

Psychometric testing of the Chinese version of the Perinatal Infant Care Social Support tool: a methodological study.

Feiyan Yi, Sukhee Ahn, Miyeon Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Feiyan YiCollege of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Seoul, Korea.
Sukhee AhnCollege of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Seoul, Korea.
Miyeon ParkDepartment of Nursing, Baekseok Culture University, Cheonan, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to translate the Perinatal Infant Care Social Support (PICSS) instrument into Chinese and to verify the reliability and validity of the translated version.

methodsThis study used a cross-sectional design to examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the PICSS (C-PICSS). A cohort of 150 first-time mothers in China participated, attending hospital follow-up care at 6 weeks postpartum. Data were collected after obtaining informed consent from the mothers.

resultsThe majority of mothers were aged between 20 and 29 years, with a mean age of 26.25 (±3.90) years. An item analysis of the 19 items in the C-PICSS showed that all items had an item-total score correlation above 0.2. This resulted in a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of 0.92 and a significant Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ2=1,778.65, p<.001), confirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Correlation analyses revealed a strong positive relationship between infant care social support and general social support (r=.62, p<.001), and a negative relationship between infant care social support and postpartum depression (r=-.38, p<.001). Higher scores for infant care social support were associated with reporting positive relationships with their husbands (t=3.72, p<.001) and high levels of spousal involvement (t=4.09, p<.001). In terms of structural support, spouses were identified as the primary source.

conclusionThe research results indicate that C-PICSS is reliable and valid as an indicator of social support for infant care among Chinese mothers.

Indexed as

Infant CareMothersPsychometricsSocial SupportAdultChinaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPerinatal CarePregnancyReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslatingInfant careMothersPrimiparitySocial supportTool translation

Identifiers

PMID38987917
PMCPMC11237360

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.