Psychometric properties of a mainland Chinese Version of the Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale (IIFAS) among Postpartum Women in China
The School of Nursing, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, 2. School of Health Sciences, Macao Polytechnic Institute, Macau, China.Contemporary nurse: a journal for the Australian nursing profession (Impact Factor: 0.65). 04/2013; 44(1):11-20. DOI: 10.5172/conu.2013.44.1.11
Abstract Background: The Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale (IIFAS) is used to evaluate maternal infant feeding attitude. The breastfeeding rate has declined but no validated instruments to assess infant feeding attitudes or related studies have been available in mainland China. Aims: The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of a mainland Chinese version of the IIFAS among postpartum women. Methods: Postpartum women (N = 660) were recruited from three university hospitals in Guangzhou in mainland China. The participants completed an IIFAS questionnaire before being discharged and accepted telephone follow-up sessions at 6 weeks and 3 months postpartum. The reliability of the scale was evaluated using intra-class correlations (ICC) for test-retest reliability, correlated item-total correlations and Cronbach's a. The validity of the scale was evaluated using the content validity index (CVI), construct validity using exploratory factor analysis and predictive validity using independent t-tests. Results: The ICC was 0.861. The correlated item-total correlations ranged from 0.262-0.691. Cronbach's a was 0.623. The CVI was 0.996. Four factors were extracted using exploratory factor analysis and they contributed to 48.69% of the total variance. Conclusions: The mainland Chinese version of the IIFAS scale can be considered a reliable, valid and predictive scale for assessing infant feeding attitudes among women in mainland China. In-hospital scores on the scale were significant predictors of the infant feeding method and breastfeeding duration at 3 days, 6 weeks and 3 months postpartum. Construct validity was confirmed and showed four factors. However, future studies are required to improve the lower level internal consistency of the IIFAS.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A growing line of research has highlighted that e-technologies may play a promising role in improving breastfeeding outcomes. The objective of this review was to synthesise the best of available evidence by conducting a meta-analysis to evaluate whether e-technologies have had any effect in improving breastfeeding outcomes among perinatal women. The review was conducted using nine electronic databases to search for English-language research studies from 2007 to 2014. A 'risk of bias' table was used to assess methodological quality. Meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan software. The Q test and I(2) test was used to assess the heterogeneity. The test of overall effect was assessed using z-statistics at P < 0.05. Of 1842 studies identified through electronic searches and reference lists, 16 experimental studies were selected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Half of the selected studies had a low risk of bias, from which a total of 5505 women in six countries in these studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed that e-technologies significantly improved exclusive breastfeeding initiation (z = 6.90, P < 0.00001), exclusive breastfeeding at 4 weeks (z = 2.12, P = 0.03) and 6 months (z = 3.2, P = 0.001), breastfeeding attitude (z = 3.01, P = 0.003) and breastfeeding knowledge (z = 4.54, P = < 0.00001) in subgroup analyses. This review provides support for the development of web-based, texting messaging, compact disc read-only memory, electronic prompts and interactive computer agent interventions for promoting and supporting breastfeeding. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Maternal and Child Nutrition 07/2015; DOI:10.1111/mcn.12202 · 3.06 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.