Observational studySouth African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care2025
Cross-cultural adaptation: South African Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Knowledge Questionnaire.
Observational study in South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany serious adverse events associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) can be mitigated by timely glucose control during pregnancy, achieved through education and lifestyle choices. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt and test the preliminary internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the South African English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa versions of the GDM Knowledge Questionnaire (GDMKQ).
methodsA prospective, observational study was conducted at a high-risk antenatal clinic in South Africa. Pregnant women ≥ 18 years with GDM were consecutively sampled. Semantic equivalence between the original and adapted versions was assessed. Face and content validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated.
resultsThe three SA-GDMKQ versions demonstrated good face and content validity. For internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha values were 0.534 for the Afrikaans version, 0.434 for the English version and 0.621 for the isiXhosa version. Test-retest reliability found kappa (standard error [s.e.]) values ranged between -0.03 (0.18) and 0.89 (0.13) for the English version, between -0.07 (0.18) and 0.53 (0.13) for the Afrikaans version and between 0.28 (0.18) and 0.87 (0.17) for the isiXhosa version. All versions of the SA-GDMKQ had a statistically significant (p 0.001) positive linear correlation between the total scores.
conclusionThe English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa SA-GDMKQ versions were found to be feasible and easy to comprehend, although lower internal consistency and test-retest reliability were displayed. Further validation of the psychometric properties of the English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa versions of the SA-GDMKQ among larger sample groups is however warranted.Contribution: This study adds to the knowledge around developing and using culturally appropriate questionnaires and outcome measures in research and clinical practice.
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.