MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183500742 · doi:10.1111/mcn.13249

A tool to assess underlying factors to water provision among Guinean children

2021· article· en· W3183500742 on OpenAlexafffund
Nèmanan Richard Ninamou, Jérémie B. Dupuis, Noël‐Marie Zagré, Mamady Daffé, Sonia Blaney

Bibliographic record

VenueMaternal and Child Nutrition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersUniversité de Moncton
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialConfirmatory factor analysisReliability (semiconductor)Exploratory factor analysisFocus groupConstruct validityConstruct (python library)Clinical psychologyApplied psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychometricsStatisticsPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many countries, water is provided to children under 6 months of age (CU6M) in addition to breast milk (BM), hence increasing the risk of child mortality and morbidity. Factors related to this practice have not been thoroughly investigated either a tool to assess them. Based on the extended theory of planned behaviour (eTPB), we aim to develop and validate a questionnaire to assess psychosocial and environmental factors that may contribute/limit the water provision in addition to BM by mothers of CU6M in the Republic of Guinea. A three-step process was used. Ten focus group discussions (FGDs) were held to identify salient beliefs related to each of the four constructs of the eTPB. Data from FGDs were used to develop a questionnaire composed of 88 items administered to 428 mothers. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to identify latent factors for each construct. A shorter version of the questionnaire was administered to another sample of 300 mothers. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed. Hancock and Mueller's H reliability indices were computed on final models to assess the tool's validity and reliability. The final questionnaire included 57 items. For all four final models, most criteria for fit indices of CFA were generally met. Reliability coefficients were all equal to or above 0.90 for each construct. This research offers a tool that could be used to investigate determinants of water provision besides BM among mothers of CU6M. Further validation in other contexts is warranted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaternal and Child NutritionSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207