Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28231285›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

The Mother's Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care.

Saraswathi Vedam, Kathrin Stoll, Kelsey Martin, Nicholas Rubashkin, Sarah Partridge, Dana Thordarson, Ganga Jolicoeur, Changing Childbirth in BC Steering Council

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Deep care: a qualitative analysis of black community midwifery.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Saraswathi VedamBirth Place Research Lab, Division of Midwifery, University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kathrin StollBirth Place Research Lab, Division of Midwifery, University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kelsey MartinBirth Place Research Lab, Division of Midwifery, University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Nicholas RubashkinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Sarah PartridgeResidency Program, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Dana ThordarsonBirth Place Research Lab, Division of Midwifery, University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ganga JolicoeurMidwives Association of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Changing Childbirth in BC Steering Council

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and validate a new instrument that assesses women's autonomy and role in decision making during maternity care.

designThrough a community-based participatory research process, service users designed, content validated, and administered a cross-sectional quantitative survey, including 31 items on the experience of decision-making. SETTING AND

participantsPregnancy experiences (n = 2514) were reported by 1672 women who saw a single type of primary maternity care provider in British Columbia. They described care by a midwife, family physician or obstetrician during 1, 2 or 3 maternity care cycles. We conducted psychometric testing in three separate samples.

main outcome measuresWe assessed reliability, item-to-total correlations, and the factor structure of the The Mothers' Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale. We report MADM scores by care provider type, length of prenatal appointments, preferences for role in decision-making, and satisfaction with experience of decision-making.

resultsThe MADM scale measures a single construct: autonomy in decision-making during maternity care. Cronbach alphas for the scale exceeded 0.90 for all samples and all provider groups. All item-to-total correlations were replicable across three samples and exceeded 0.7. Eigenvalue and scree plots exhibited a clear 90-degree angle, and factor analysis generated a one factor scale. MADM median scores were highest among women who were cared for by midwives, and 10 or more points lower for those who saw physicians. Increased time for prenatal appointments was associated with higher scale scores, and there were significant differences between providers with respect to average time spent in prenatal appointments. Midwifery care was associated with higher MADM scores, even during short prenatal appointments (<15 minutes). Among women who preferred to lead decisions around their care (90.8%), and who were dissatisfied with their experience of decision making, MADM scores were very low (median 14). Women with physician carers were consistently more likely to report dissatisfaction with their involvement in decision making. DISCUSSION: The Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale is a reliable instrument for assessment of the experience of decision making during maternity care. This new scale was developed and content validated by community members representing various populations of childbearing women in BC including women from vulnerable populations. MADM measures women's ability to lead decision making, whether they are given enough time to consider their options, and whether their choices are respected. Women who experienced midwifery care reported greater autonomy than women under physician care, when engaging in decision-making around maternity care options. Differences in models of care, professional education, regulatory standards, and compensation for prenatal visits between midwives and physicians likely affect the time available for these discussions and prioritization of a shared decision making process.

conclusionThe MADM scale reflects person-driven priorities, and reliably assesses interactions with maternity providers related to a person's ability to lead decision-making over the course of maternity care.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesPatient ParticipationPrenatal CareBritish ColumbiaDecision MakingFemaleHumansMidwiferyMothersObstetricsPatient SatisfactionPhysicians, FamilyPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID28231285
PMCPMC5322919

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.