Cultural Adaptation, Validation, and Primary Application of a Questionnaire to Assess Intentions to Eat Low-Glycemic Index Foods among Rural Chinese Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different lines of evidence indicate that knowledge of low-glycemic index (GI) foods and the practice of eating them play important roles in blood glucose management and preventing T2DM in women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). According to the theory of planned behavior (TPB), intention is a critical factor in complying with health-related behaviors. However, an instrument for assessing the intention to eat low-GI foods is lacking in China. We aimed to (1) adapt and validate a Chinese version of the intentions to eat low-GI foods questionnaire (CIELQ) and (2) apply the CIELQ among rural Chinese women to explore the associations between CIELQ scores and glycemic status. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 417 nondiabetic, nonpregnant participants with a history of GDM in Hunan, China. After cultural adaptation and validation, the CIELQ was applied in a target population. Glycemic status, anthropometric variables, dietary intake, and physical activity were measured; a self-developed, standard questionnaire was applied to collect relevant information. The CIELQ showed good internal consistency; model fitness was acceptable based on the confirmatory factor analysis results. Awareness of the glycemic index was low among the study population. TPB factors were found to be associated with each other; education level and parents' diabetes history were associated with specific factors. The score for instrumental attitude showed a positive association with the risk for a high level of the 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (odds ratio, OR = 1.330), while the score for perceived behavior control (PBC) showed a negative association with the risk for a high level (OR = 0.793). The CIELQ was determined to be a valid instrument for assessing the intention to eat a low-GI diet among the study population. The awareness of the GI was poor among the study population. The score for instrumental attitude showed a positive association with the risk of a high level on the 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and the score for PBC showed a negative association with the risk for a high level on OGTT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".