ArticlePeerJ2016
Applicability of the ReproQ client experiences questionnaire for quality improvement in maternity care.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Women's reported experience of respectful maternity care measures worldwide: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.Health services research · 2019Pooled it
- Measuring women's childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Pooled it
- Effects of a Personal Health Record in Maternity Care: A Stepped-Wedge Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Risk-guided maternity care to enhance maternal empowerment postpartum: A cluster randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Assessing women's perspective of the quality of care of the childbirth experience at a tertiary care hospital in Egypt: An application of the WHO standards-based tool.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for quality improvement in pregnancy and childbirth care: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Perinatal Care to Guide Clinical Practice: Prospective Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Observational
- Implementation of a standard outcome set in perinatal care: a qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators from all stakeholder perspectives.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- A feasibility study of implementing a patient-centered outcome set for pregnancy and childbirth.Health science reports · 2020Article
- Client-tailored maternity care to increase maternal empowerment: cluster randomized controlled trial protocol; the healthy pregnancy 4 All-2 program.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
- The discriminative power of the ReproQ: a client experience questionnaire in maternity care.PeerJ · 2019Article
- The perceptions and experiences of women who achieved and did not achieve a waterbirth.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Measuring clients' experiences with antenatal care before or after childbirth: it matters.PeerJ · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. The ReproQuestionnaire (ReproQ) measures the client's experience with maternity care, following the WHO responsiveness model. In 2015, the ReproQ was appointed as national client experience questionnaire and will be added to the national list of indicators in maternity care. For using the ReproQ in quality improvement, the questionnaire should be able to identify best and worst practices. To achieve this, ReproQ should be reliable and able to identify relevant differences. Methods and Findings. We sent questionnaires to 17,867 women six weeks after labor (response 32%). Additionally, we invited 915 women for the retest (response 29%). Next we determined the test-retest reliability, the Minimally Important Difference (MID) and six known group comparisons, using two scorings methods: the percentage women with at least one negative experience and the mean score. The reliability for the percentage negative experience and mean score was both 'good' (Absolute agreement = 79%; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.78). The MID was 11% for the percentage negative and 0.15 for the mean score. Application of the MIDs revealed relevant differences in women's experience with regard to professional continuity, setting continuity and having travel time. Conclusions. The measurement characteristics of the ReproQ support its use in quality improvement cycle. Test-retest reliability was good, and the observed minimal important difference allows for discrimination of good and poor performers, also at the level of specific features of performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.