Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31799065›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

The discriminative power of the ReproQ: a client experience questionnaire in maternity care.

Marisja Scheerhagen, Henk F van Stel, Arie Franx, Erwin Birnie, Gouke J Bonsel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Marisja ScheerhagenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk F van StelDepartment of Healthcare Innovation and Evaluation, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arie FranxDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erwin BirnieErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Department of Health Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gouke J BonselDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Collaborative Maternity Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the ReproQuestionnaire (ReproQ) is to measure the client's experience with maternity care, following WHO's responsiveness model. To support quality improvement, ReproQ should be able to discriminate best from worst organisational units.

methodsWe sent questionnaires to 27,487 third-trimester pregnant women (response 31%) and to 37,230 women 6 weeks after childbirth (response 39%). For analysis we first summarized the ReproQ domain scores into three summary scores: total score (all eight domains), personal score (four personal domains), and setting score (four setting domains). Second, we estimated the proportion of variance across perinatal units attributable to the 'actual' difference across perinatal units using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Third, we assessed the ability of ReproQ to discriminate between perinatal units based on both a statistical approach using multilevel regression analyses, and a relevance approach based on the minimally important difference (MID). Finally, we compared the domain scores of the best and underperforming units.

resultsICCs ranged between 0.004 and 0.025 for the summary scores, and between 0.002 and 0.125 for the individual domains. ReproQ was able to identify the best and worst performing units with both the statistical and relevance approach. The statistical approach was able to identify four underperforming units during childbirth (total score), while the relevance approach identified 10 underperforming units.

conclusionsReproQ, a valid and efficient measure of client experiences in maternity care, has the ability to discriminate well across perinatal units, and is suitable for benchmarking under routine conditions.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingClient experiencesPerformanceQuality improvementResponsiveness

Identifiers

PMID31799065
PMCPMC6884994

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.