Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  16 (2024)
Volume  15 (2023)
Volume  14 (2022)
Volume  13 (2021)
Volume  12 (2020)
Volume  11 (2019)
Volume  10 (2018)
Volume  9 (2017)
Volume  8 (2016)
Volume  7 (2015)
Volume  6 (2014)
Volume  5 (2013)
Volume  4 (2012)
Volume  3 (2011)
Volume  2 (2010)
Volume  1 (2009)
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE S3 ( December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Adapting the FIGO Nutrition Checklist for Malaysia: Translation, Validation, and Evaluation of the M-FIGO Nutrition Checklist and M-FIGO Module

Beng In Loh, Ruhaya Hasan, Hamid Jan Jan Mohamed, Nik Lah Nik-Ahmad-Zuky, Mark Hanson, Fionnuala M McAuliffe, Sarah Louise Killeen

Keywords : FIGO nutrition checklist, Gestational diabetes mellitus, Maternal and fetal outcomes, Maternal health, Nutrition, Pregnancy

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2543

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-02-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a prevalent pregnancy complication, with current unstructured management initiatives showing limited effectiveness, exacerbated by constrained consultation time and inadequate communication between healthcare practitioners and pregnant women. The FIGO Nutrition Checklist, designed to identify nutritional deficiencies and guide interventions, holds potential for preventing excessive gestational weight gain in GDM. Translating and validating this tool for Malaysia is crucial, given the country's unique dietary habits, including high carbohydrate consumption from staples like white rice and noodles, which present specific challenges for managing GDM. This study aimed to translate the FIGO Nutrition Checklist into Bahasa Malaysia, validate the translated M-FIGO Nutrition Checklist, and assess its reliability. Additionally, a supplementary module, the M-FIGO Module, was introduced to address region-specific dietary concerns related to managing GDM. Methods: A four-step forward and backward translation method was utilized, along with content validation, face validity assessment, reliability testing, and evaluation using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for the newly developed supplementary module. Results: The translated M-FIGO Nutrition Checklist achieved an item-level content validity index (I-CVI) of 0.98 and an item-level face validity index (I-FVI) of 0.98, indicating that its items were clear and comprehensible. The checklist recorded a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.76 from 30 respondents, demonstrating acceptable internal consistency and reliability. The PEMAT assessment of the M-FIGO Module yielded a score of 94%, suggesting its effectiveness. Conclusion: The high levels of I-CVI, I-FVI, and PEMAT scores support the use of the M-FIGO Nutrition Checklist and its supplementary module (M-FIGO Module) as a valid and reliable tool. Clinical Significance: This adaptation is aimed at improving maternal nutrition care and holds potential for integration into standard care protocols within Malaysian maternal healthcare facilities.

PDF Share
  1. Zhu Y, Zhang C. Prevalence of gestational diabetes and risk of progression to type 2 diabetes: A global perspective. Curr Diab Rep 2016;16(1):7. DOI: 10.1007/s11892-015-0699-x.
  2. Koo BK, Lee JH, Kim J, et al. Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Korea: A National Health Insurance Database Study. PLoS One 2016;11(4):e0153107. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153107.
  3. Lavery JA, Friedman AM, Keyes KM, et al. Gestational diabetes in the United States: Temporal changes in prevalence rates between 1979 and 2010. BJOG 2016;124(5):804–813. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528. 14236.
  4. Ravichandran J, Karalasingsm SD. 6th report of the National Obstetrics Registry: January 2018- December 2020. National Obstetrics Registry. Available from: http://www.acrm.org.my/nor/.
  5. Thomas A Buchanan, Anny H Xiang, Kathleen A. Page. Gestational diabetes mellitus: Risks and management during and after pregnancy. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2012;8(11):639–649. DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2012.96.
  6. Hanson MA, Bardsley A, De-Regil LM, et al. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) recommendations on adolescent, preconception, and maternal nutrition: Think Nutrition First. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015;131(Suppl 4):S213–S53. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7292(15)30034-5.
  7. McAuliffe FM. Impact of pregnancy on long-term health: Advances in post pregnancy care-An opportunity to improve long-term maternal health. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023;160(Suppl 1):4–6. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14536.
  8. Killeen SL, Donnellan N, O'Reilly SL, et al. Using FIGO Nutrition Checklist counselling in pregnancy: A review to support healthcare professionals. FIGO Committee on Impact of Pregnancy on Long-term Health and the FIGO Division of Maternal and Newborn Health. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023;160(Suppl 1):10–21. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14539.
  9. Killeen S, Callaghan S, Jacob C, et al. Examining the use of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in routine antenatal practice: Multistakeholder feedback to implementation. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2020;151(S1):51–56. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13323.
  10. Tsoi KY, Chan RSM, Li LS, et al. Evaluation of dietary pattern in early pregnancy using the FIGO Nutrition Checklist compared to a food frequency questionnaire. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2020;151: 37–44. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13324.
  11. Parisi F, Savasi V, di Bartolo I, et al. Associations between first trimester maternal nutritional score, early markers of placental function, and pregnancy outcome. Nutrients 2020;12:799. DOI: 10.3390/nu12061799.
  12. Killeen SL, Callaghan SL, Jacob CM, et al. “It only takes two minutes to ask”—a qualitative study with women on using the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2020;151(Suppl 1):45–50. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13322.
  13. Soepnel LM, Draper CE, Mabetha K, et al. Evaluating implementation of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist for preconception and pregnancy within the Bukhali trial in Soweto, South Africa. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023;160(Suppl 1):68–79. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14541.
  14. Divakar H, Mishra R, Divakar GV, et al. Implementing international federation of gynecology and obstetrics nutrition checklist for pregnant women: Opportunities and challenges in low- and middle-income countries. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2022;14(6): 704–709. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2151.
  15. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 2008. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231881.001.0001.
  16. Beaton, Dorcas E, Bombardier, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25(24):3186–3191. DOI:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
  17. Yusoff MSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Edu Med J 2019;11(2):49–54. DOI: 10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6.
  18. Harkness JA, Schoua-Glusberg A. Questionnaires in translation. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial 1998:40. pp. 87–126.
  19. Sperber AD, Develis RF, Boehlecke B. Cross-cultural translation: Methodology and validation. J Cross-cultural Psychol 1994;25(4):501–524. DOI: 10.1177/002202219425400.
  20. Pan Y, de la Puente M. Census Bureau Guideline for the translation of data collection instruments and supporting materials: Documentation on how the guideline was developed. Washington DC: Statistical Research Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census; 2005.
  21. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17:268–274. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x.
  22. Su CT, Parham LD. Generating a valid questionnaire translation for cross-cultural use. Am J Occup Ther 2002;56:581–585. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.56.5.581.
  23. Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth 2017;11(Suppl 1):S80–S89. DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_203_17.
  24. Nunnally J. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
  25. Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns 2014;96(3):395–403. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027.
  26. Lee JGL, Sesay M, Acevedo PA, et al. Practical advice regarding the reliability of the patient educational materials assessment tool for health educators. Health Promot Pract 2022;23(1):17–19. DOI:10.1177/1524839920984790.
  27. Wong ST, Norkhafizah S, Wan NA. Validity of the Bahasa Malaysia version of patient education materials assessment tool. Malays J Public Health Med 2018;18(Suppl. 4).
  28. Lee YY, Waid A, Tan HJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the Malay-language translation of the Rome III diagnostic questionnaire for irritable bowel syndrome. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:746–750. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06943.x.
  29. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006;29(5):489–497. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20147.
  30. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007;30(4):459–467. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20199.
  31. Shuttleworth M. Face validity. (2008–2017; cited 2024). Available from: https://dissertation.laerd.com/face-validity.php. (2012; cited 2024 June 24).
  32. Lau ASY, Yusoff MSB, Lee YY, et al. Development and validation of a Chinese translated questionnaire: A single simultaneous tool for assessing gastrointestinal and upper respiratory tract related illnesses in pre-school children. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2018;13(2):135–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2017.11.003.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.