ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Development and Validation of an Evaluation Questionnaire for the Healthy Early Life Moments in Singapore (HELMS) Program.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesGlobal fertility rates are declining due to metabolic and mental health challenges in women trying to conceive. The Healthy Early Life Moments in Singapore (HELMS) program aims to address these challenges through mobile health (mHealth)-enabled lifestyle interventions. However, the lack of validated evaluation tools for such programs makes it difficult to assess their feasibility and acceptability. To tackle this, a comprehensive evaluation questionnaire was developed and validated to determine if the HELMS preconception program's implementation outcomes were achieved.
methodsThe questionnaire development process included a literature review and a two-step validation process: content validation by five content experts and face validation by 20 HELMS participants. Content validation was assessed using the scale content validity index (S-CVI) based on relevance, clarity, simplicity, and ambiguity. Face validation with participants evaluated these criteria and the ease of completing the questionnaire. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha among 49 participants.
resultsThe questionnaire achieved good S-CVI values for relevance (0.93), clarity (0.91), simplicity (0.94), and ambiguity (0.71). After expert feedback, the revised version scored highly among HELMS participants for relevance (100%), clarity (95%), simplicity (95%), and non-ambiguity (90%). A Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 indicated good internal consistency.
conclusionThe HELMS evaluation questionnaire shows promise for evaluating similar mHealth-based lifestyle intervention programs globally.
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.