ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Development and validation of a tool to assess mothers' knowledge, perception, and practice of child growth monitoring.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChild growth monitoring (CGM) is essential for the early detection and prevention of malnutrition and growth abnormalities. Despite its importance, there is a lack of validated instruments to assess mothers’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices related to CGM. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess these domains among mothers of children under five years of age.
methodsThe study was conducted in two stages. First, a theory-driven questionnaire was developed based on an extensive literature review, global and national guidelines, and expert consultation. Second, the questionnaire’s psychometric properties were evaluated using data from a cross-sectional survey of 436 mothers. An expert panel assessed content validity, internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, and construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe final questionnaire comprised 67 items across three domains: knowledge (27 items), perception (14 items), and practice (11 items). The instrument demonstrated good overall internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82), with strong reliability across main domains (α = 0.81–0.92). CFA supported the hypothesized three-domain structure, with good model fit indices for the full measurement model (CMIN/DF = 1.62; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.038).
conclusionThis study presents a valid and reliable questionnaire for assessing mothers’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding CGM. The tool can support research, inform maternal education strategies, and guide public health interventions to improve early childhood growth outcomes.
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.