ArticleBMJ open2018
Validity and reliability of maternal recall of pregnancy history and service use among signing Deaf women: a cross-sectional descriptive study from South Africa.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging gaps in maternity care for women with disabilities: a scoping review of access and utilisation in sub-Saharan Africa adopting the WHO health systems framework.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Review
- Association between maternal religious service attendance and pregnancy loss in the United States: a secondary analysis of the Future Families & Child Wellbeing Study.Research square · 2024Article
- Racial Disparities in Respectful Maternity Care During Pregnancy and Birth After Cesarean in Rural United States.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2023Observational
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
Abstract
introductionThere is little credible quantitative data on pregnancy histories and outcomes for disabled women in low-income and middle-income countries. The purpose of this study, based in Cape Town, South Africa, was to test the reliability and validity of maternal recall of pregnancy history and service use among a sample of Deaf women who use South African Sign Language (SASL).
methodsWe interviewed 42 signing Deaf women of childbearing age (18-49 years) in SASL using a structured questionnaire in July 2016. To assess reliability, seven participants (16% of the sample) were reinterviewed by different interviewers under the same conditions after 10-30 min. For the analysis we used (1) Cohen's kappa, an inter-rater statistical method, and (2) overall percentage agreement. Validity was explored by comparing the participants' pregnancy history to the Western Cape Provincial Health Data Centre (PHDC) database.
resultsThe reliability results showed that out of 19 questions 14 demonstrated substantial to perfect agreement kappa scores (kappa between 0.61 and 1) and 5 had the lowest kappa agreement scores (kappa <0.61). With respect to percentage agreement, participants provided identical responses in 87% cases. Overall, women provided more reliable responses to pregnancy outcomes compared with demographic information. Validity results showed that 29 out of 35 Deaf women provided survey responses that matched or nearly matched (83% agreement) the PHDC database for birth history and delivery location.
conclusionThis study suggests that for this sample of signing Deaf women recall of pregnancy history and service use is reliable and valid. Extending this approach to other similar populations will require further research, but it is important that methods to access hard-to-reach disabled populations are developed so that health system responsiveness to marginal populations can be based on robust evidence.
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.