ArticleBMC public health2025
Development and pilot testing of a comprehensive and culturally-sensitive infant feeding descriptive questionnaire: a cross-sectional design.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mixed-method approach to assess factors associated with food provision to children during weaning in Singapore.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Infant Honey Feeding and Associating Sociodemographic and Clinical Factors:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundInfant feeding tools available in the literature lack comprehensiveness and inclusiveness to infants of different ages. This study aimed to pilot test a newly developed infant feeding descriptive questionnaire.
methodsThis study utilized a cross-sectional design. The questionnaire developed had two main sections; the first section included questions relative to sociodemographic characteristics, birth and clinical history, and infant food history in the first year. The second section incorporated a 22-item design to stipulate a comprehensive description of infant feeding practices (IFP) and Infant Feeding Beliefs (IFB). A convenient sampling technique was used to collect data from six health centers located in Muscat and Al-Sharqia North. The infant feeding practices and beliefs variables were dichotomized to either meeting the recommendations (1) or not meeting the recommendations (0), based on the WHO guidelines.
resultsThe data analysis encompassed a cohort of 203 participants. Most mothers aged between 26 and 35 years (58.6%). Among the mothers, 67% practiced exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months, 89.2% were breastfeeding in the first year, and 44.9% initiated infant formula feeding at six months of age or later. Moreover, 64% of the mothers introduced solid food (e.g., rice, vegetables, fruits) at six months, while (87.2%) started feeding meat, chicken, or fish at six months. For feeding egg white, fresh milk, and bee honey, 43.4%, 84.7%, and 78.4%, respectively, met the recommendation of waiting until the child ages 12 months. The mean IFP score was 8.09 (SD 1.75), while the mean IFB score was slightly higher (m = 8.90, SD = 1.45). The Pearson correlation analysis signified a positive relationship between IFP and IFB (r = 0.53, p < 0.001). Mothers who received infant feeding counseling had higher IFP scores compared to the mothers who did not. Additionally, mothers with at least a baccalaureate degree and a family income of at least 1000 OMR had better IFB recommendation scores (p < 0.05).
conclusionData generated from the newly developed infant feeding practices and beliefs questionnaire shall assist in determining the risks associated with multiple nutrition-related morbidities in children, contributing to a comprehensive infant feeding assessment.
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.