Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25671310›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Measuring client experiences in maternity care under change: development of a questionnaire based on the WHO Responsiveness model.

Marisja Scheerhagen, Henk F van Stel, Erwin Birnie, Arie Franx, Gouke J Bonsel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effects of a Personal Health Record in Maternity Care: A Stepped-Wedge Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marisja ScheerhagenErasmus Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk F van StelUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of Health Technology Assessment, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erwin BirnieInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Arie FranxUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Division Women and Baby, Department of Obstetrics, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gouke J BonselErasmus Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaternity care is an integrated care process, which consists of different services, involves different professionals and covers different time windows. To measure performance of maternity care based on clients' experiences, we developed and validated a questionnaire. METHODS AND

findingsWe used the 8-domain WHO Responsiveness model, and previous materials to develop a self-report questionnaire. A dual study design was used for development and validation. Content validity of the ReproQ-version-0 was determined through structured interviews with 11 pregnant women (≥28 weeks), 10 women who recently had given birth (≤12 weeks), and 19 maternity care professionals. Structured interviews established the domain relevance to the women; all items were separately commented on. All Responsiveness domains were judged relevant, with Dignity and Communication ranking highest. Main missing topic was the assigned expertise of the health professional. After first adaptation, construct validity of the ReproQ-version-1 was determined through a web-based survey. Respondents were approached by maternity care organizations with different levels of integration of services of midwives and obstetricians. We sent questionnaires to 605 third trimester pregnant women (response 65%), and 810 women 6 weeks after delivery (response 55%). Construct validity was based on: response patterns; exploratory factor analysis; association of the overall score with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), known group comparisons. Median overall ReproQ score was 3.70 (range 1-4) showing good responsiveness. The exploratory factor analysis supported the assumed domain structure and suggested several adaptations. Correlation of the VAS rating and overall ReproQ score (antepartum, postpartum) supported validity (r = 0.56; 0.59, p<0.001 Spearman's correlation coefficient). Pre-stated group comparisons confirmed the expected difference following a good vs. adverse birth outcome. Fully integrated organizations performed slightly better (median = 3.78) than less integrated organizations (median = 3.63; p<0.001). Participation rate of women with a low educational level and/or a non-western origin was low.

conclusionsThe ReproQ appears suitable for assessing quality of maternity care from the clients' perspective. Recruitment of disadvantaged groups requires additional non-digital approaches.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalSurveys and QuestionnairesWorld Health OrganizationAdultFemaleHumansMaternal Health ServicesPatient SatisfactionPregnancyProgram EvaluationPsychometricsSelf ReportYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25671310
PMCPMC4324965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.