ArticleJournal of public health research2025
Translation and validation of health professionals' knowledge and attitudes instrument regarding Baby-Led Weaning approach into European Portuguese.
Article in Journal of public health research, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early childhood is a critical period for preventing malnutrition and ensuring adequate nutrient intake. While various feeding approaches exist, no consensus has been reached on the ideal one. Baby-Led Weaning (BLW) is an emerging method that involves the direct introduction of finger foods to children. However, limited evidence exists on health professionals' (HP) perspective. We aim to translate and validate an instrument to assess the knowledge and attitudes of HP toward BLW method in European Portuguese. Design and methods: A methodological study was conducted with a nonprobability sample of 118 HPs working in primary care settings. The instrument underwent translation, back-translation, and review by an expert panel to ensure semantic and conceptual equivalence. The content validity index (CVI) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were employed to assess content and construct validity, respectively. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha. The instrument was available online. Results: The adapted instrument showed high content validity, with CVI values of 0.89 for practice-related items and 0.87 for knowledge and attitude items. EFA revealed three distinct factors: positive child-centered contributions, positive parent-centered contributions, and BLW constraints, explaining 67.46% of total variance. The model's suitability was confirmed by Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ²(66) = 665.735; Conclusions: The validated instrument is a reliable tool for assessing HPs' knowledge and attitudes toward BLW. Findings support the need for targeted education to better equip professionals in guiding parents on BLW practices.
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.