ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Development and validation of gestational diabetes dietary psychological evaluation scale.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a dietary psychological evaluation scale tailored specifically for GDM in pregnant women. The goal is to facilitate individualized nutrition interventions by considering both psychological and physical factors that may influence the progression of diabetes during pregnancy.
methodsA scale was developed by combining clinical practice and theory. A pre-test was conducted for item selection, as well as to assess the representativeness and independence of all items. We also assessed reliability. A pilot test was conducted to assess validity.
resultsIn the end, 41 items were selected, and 4 domains were determined: worry, positive experience, negative experience, and stress. Cronbach α values for each domain (0.560-0.869) were acceptable, except for the stress domain. The results of factor analysis (χ²/df = 2.36, GFI = 0.908, AGFI = 0.898, NFI = 0.854, RFI = 0.782, CFI = 0.882, RMSEA = 0.059) indicated a good fit with the theoretical model. The norm values for this dietary psychological evaluation were determined.
conclusionThe reliability and validity of the scale were satisfactory. This scale can be used to evaluate the psychological status of patients with GDM and provide individualized nutrition interventions.
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.