Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31088487›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Women's experiences of maternity care in England: preliminary development of a standard measure.

Maggie Redshaw, Colin R Martin, Emily Savage-McGlynn, Sian Harrison

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Respectful Maternity Care Initiative: A Qualitative Study.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Maggie RedshawPolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. maggie.redshaw@npeu.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5506-3330
Colin R MartinPolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Emily Savage-McGlynnPolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Sian HarrisonPolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs maternity services evolve and the population of women served also changes, there is a continuing need to effectively document the views of women with recent experience of care. A woman's maternity experience can have a positive or negative effect upon her emotional well-being and health, in the immediate and the long-term, which can also impact the infant and the wider family system. Measuring women's perceptions of maternity services is an important way of monitoring the quality of care provision, as well as providing key indicators to organisations of the services that they are providing. It follows that, without information identifying possible areas in need of improvement, it is not clear what changes should be made to improve the experiences of women during their journey through maternity services from pregnancy to the early weeks at home with a new baby . The objective is to describe the development process and psychometric properties of a measure of women's experience of maternity care covering the three distinctly different phases of maternity - pregnancy, labour and birth, and the early postnatal period.

methodsData from a national survey of women who had recently given birth (n = 504) were used. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic methods were employed. The measure was assessed for underlying latent factor structure, as well as for reliability, internal consistency, and validity (predictive, convergent and discriminant).

resultsThe models developed confirmed the use of three separate, but related scales about experience of maternity care during pregnancy, labour and birth and the postnatal period. Data reduction was effective, resulting in a measure with 36 items (12 per scale).

conclusionThe need for a psychometrically robust and qualitatively comprehensive measure of women's experience of maternity care has been addressed in the development and validation of this prototype measure. The whole measure can be used at one time point, or the three separate subscales used as individual measures of experience during particular phases of the maternity journey with identified factor structures in their own right.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultDelivery, ObstetricEnglandFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansPostnatal CarePregnancyPrenatal CarePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsBirthMaternityMethodologyPatient experiencePerinatalPregnancyPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID31088487
PMCPMC6518811

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.