SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Journal of Pediatric Research / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the Preterm Oral Feeding Readiness Assessment Scale (T-POFRAS)

Zühal ÇAMUR
Bengü ÇETİNKAYA
Pages
225–232
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: This study showed that the validity of the Turkish version of T-POFRAS was acceptable.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Preterm Oral Feeding Readiness Assessment Scale (T-POFRAS) in order to add this scale to the literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A methodological study was conducted with 90 pre-terms in a neonatal intensive care unit in a state hospital.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: This study showed that the validity of the Turkish version of T-POFRAS was acceptable.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Aim: To test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Preterm Oral Feeding Readiness Assessment Scale (T-POFRAS) in order to add this scale to the literature. Materials and Methods: A methodological study was conducted with 90 pre-terms in a neonatal intensive care unit in a state hospital. Results: The best cut-off score value was 29 from the receiver operating characteristics analysis. For the 1st observer, 100% sensitivity and 95.7% specificity were seen at a cut-off score of 29, whereas for the 2nd observer, 95.5% sensitivity and 97.8% specificity were seen. The inter-rater agreement was quite high when the two observers were divided into groups according to their cut-off scores (Kappa=0.933; p=0.0001). The inter-rater agreement was 96.7% (in 87 preterms). Conclusion: This study showed that the validity of the Turkish version of T-POFRAS was acceptable.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇAMUR, Z., ÇETİNKAYA, B. (2021). The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the Preterm Oral Feeding Readiness Assessment Scale (T-POFRAS). The Journal of Pediatric Research, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 225–232. https://ajindex.com/articles/362863

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Als H. A synactive model of neonatal behavioral organization: framework for the assessment of neurobehavioral development in the premature infant and for support of infants and parents in the neonatal intensive care environment. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 1986; 6:3-53
  2. Gennattasio A, Perri EA, Baranek D, Rohan A. Oral feeding readiness assessment in premature infants. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2015; 40:96-104
  3. Als H. Toward a synactive theory of development: Promise for the assessment and support of infant individuality. Infant Ment Health J 1982; 3:229-43
  4. Als H, Lawhon, G, Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Gibes-Grossman R, Blickman JG. Individualized developmental care for the very low-birth-weight preterm infant: medical and neurofunctional effects. JAMA 1994; 272:853-58
  5. Singhal A, Cole TJ, Lucas A. Early nutrition in preterm infants and later blood pressure: two cohorts after randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357:413-9
  6. Manzoni P, Stolfi I, Pedicino R, et al. Human milk feeding prevents retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in preterm VLBW neonates. Early Hum Dev 2013; 89:64-8
  7. Cortez J, Makker K, Kraemer DF, Neu J, Sharma R, Hudak ML. Maternal milk feedings reduce sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis and improve outcomes of premature infants. J Perinatol 2018; 38:71-4
  8. Pickler, Rita H. “A model of feeding readiness for preterm infants.” Neonatal Intensive Care 2004; 4:31-6
  9. Miller M, Vaidya R, Rastogi D, Bhutada A, Rastogi S. From parenteral to enteral nutrition: a nutrition-based approach for evaluating postnatal growth failure in preterm infants. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2014; 38:489-97
  10. Bolisetty S, Osborn D, Schindler T, et al. “Standardised neonatal parenteral nutrition formulations-Australasian neonatal parenteral nutrition consensus update 2017.” BMC Pediatr 2020; 20:1-11
  11. Embleton NE, Pang N, Cooke RJ. Postnatal malnutrition and growth retardation: an inevitable consequence of current recommendations in preterm infants? Pediatrics 2001; 107:270-3
  12. Agostoni C, Buonocore G, Carnielli VP, De Curtis M, Darmaun D, Decsi, T, et al. Enteral nutrient supply for preterm infants: commentary from the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Committee on Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2010; 50:85-91
  13. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on NutritioN 2018. Nuritional Needs of Preterm Infants. Last Accessed Date: 25.09.2019Available from: https://solutions.aap.org/./ Dec%202015_High-R