ArticleElectronic physician2017
The examination of quality of pregnancy care based on the World Health Organization's "Responsiveness" model of selected pregnant women in Tehran.
Article in Electronic physician, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization (WHO) Responsiveness model showing the ability of health systems in fulfilling people's expectations in connection with nonclinical aspects is an appropriate pattern to assess healthcare. The purpose of this study was to determine the status of pregnancy care provisions based on the responsiveness model.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study conducted by randomly sampling 130 women visiting selected hospitals in Tehran in 2015. A researcher-made questionnaire based on the responsiveness model of WHO was used to collect data. We determined the face validity and content validity of the questionnaire, and its reliability was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.94) and test-retest analysis (0.96). The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS version 20 descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, and Spearman correlation.
resultsTotal responsiveness from the perspective of service recipients was 69.46±14.65 from 100. The obtained scores showed that, in the range of 0 to 100, 73.02 were about basic amenities (the most score), 72.93 about dignity, 70.91 about communication, 70.76 about confidentiality, 66.30 about provision social needs, 65.96 about choice of provider, 65.92 about autonomy, and 52.65 about prompt attention (the lowest score), which are representing the average level of service quality. There were significant relationships between participating in preparation class of labor and dignity (p<0.001), autonomy (p=0.01), provision social needs (p=0.01), and overall responsiveness (p=0.03). It was obtained that there is a significant linear relationship between scores given to hospitals and dimensions of responsiveness (p=0.05). Findings indicated a significant relationship between insurance type and dimensions of choice of provider (p=0.03) and communication (p=0.03).
conclusionThe mean score of service quality in the present investigation illustrated that nonclinical dimensions have been disregarded and it has potential to be better. So some grand plans are needed.
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.