Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31670773›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2020

Yes, no, maybe so: the importance of cognitive interviewing to enhance structured surveys on respectful maternity care in northern India.

Kerry Scott, Dipanwita Gharai, Manjula Sharma, Namrata Choudhury, Bibha Mishra, Sara Chamberlain, Amnesty LeFevre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Pilot Study of Menstrual Health Education, Attitudes, and Product Access in Rural Honduras.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 'Global health action · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Kerry ScottDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Dipanwita GharaiOxford Policy Management, New Delhi, India.
Manjula SharmaIndependent Consultant, New Delhi, India.
Namrata ChoudhuryIndependent Consultant, New Delhi, India.
Bibha MishraOxford Policy Management, New Delhi, India.
Sara ChamberlainBBC Media Action, New Delhi, India.
Amnesty LeFevreDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative survey findings are important in measuring health-related phenomena, including on sensitive topics such as respectful maternity care (RMC). But how well do survey results truly capture respondent experiences and opinions? Quantitative tool development and piloting often involve translating questions from other settings and assessing the mechanics of implementation, which fails to deeply explore how respondents understand survey questions and response options. To address this gap, we conducted cognitive interviews on survey questions (n = 88) adapted from validated RMC instruments used in Ethiopia, Kenya and elsewhere in India. Cognitive interviews with rural women (n = 21) in Madhya Pradesh, India involved asking the respondent the survey question, recording her response, then interviewing her about what the question and response options meant to her. We analysed the interviews to revise the tool and identify question failures, which we grouped into six areas: issues with sequencing, length and sensitivity; problematic response options; inappropriate vocabulary; temporal and spatial confusion; accessing different cognitive domains; and failure to resonate with the respondent's worldview and reality. Although women tended to provide initial answers to the survey questions, cognitive interviews revealed widespread mismatch between respondent interpretation and question intent. Likert scale response options were generally incomprehensible and questions involving hypothetical scenarios could be interpreted in unexpected ways. Many key terms and concepts from the international RMC literature did not translate well and showed low resonance with respondents, including consent and being involved in decisions about one's care. This study highlights the threat to data quality and the validity of findings when translating quantitative surveys between languages and cultures and showcases the value of cognitive interviews in identifying question failures. While survey tool revision can address many of these issues, further critical discussion is needed on the use of standardized questions to assess the same domains across contexts.

Indexed as

Cognitive ScienceCross-Cultural ComparisonFemaleHumansIndiaInterviews as TopicLanguageMaternal Health ServicesPregnancyRural PopulationSurveys and Questionnairescognitive interviewsdisrespect and abuseIndiapatient–provider relationshiprespectful maternity caresurvey design

Identifiers

PMID31670773
PMCPMC7053388

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.