ArticleBMJ global health2020
Measuring experiences of facility-based care for pregnant women and newborns: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Women's reported experience of respectful maternity care measures worldwide: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Experiences of private sector quality care amongst mothers, newborns, and children in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of midwifery students' continuity of care program on women's experiences of maternity care: A randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Women's perspectives on gestational diabetes mellitus screening services during antenatal care in Tanzania.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Satisfaction and experience of care among women with abortion-related complications from Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Global scoping review of key domains of patient-reported experience of care measures across life stages and healthcare technical areas.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Development of a survey tool to measure pediatric experience of care: Cognitive testing and validation in the Laos.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a person-centered antenatal care scale for low- and middle-income countries.npj women's health · 2026Article
- Identifying women with poor experience of post-abortion care: a cross-sectional study in two African hospitals in humanitarian settings.BMC public health · 2025Article
- 'One woman, one bed': prevalence and factors associated with women's experiences of respectful birth in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - across-sectional survey.Global health action · 2025Article
- The use of Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R) in comparing the experiences of mothers with and without HIV in Tanzania.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Assessing women's perspective of the quality of care of the childbirth experience at a tertiary care hospital in Egypt: An application of the WHO standards-based tool.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Toward consensus: a Delphi study on the core principles and indicators of respectful maternity care.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Exploring Women's Perceived Quality of Antenatal Care: A Cross-Sectional Study in The Netherlands.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Assessment of the person-centered maternity care scale: a global systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- A Spanish-Language Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Trust in Pregnancy Care Clinician.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Parents' perceptions of care quality at child health centres: A cross-sectional study from Sweden.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Observational
- Respectful maternity care and mistreatment: Women's experiences during induction of labor and childbirth in Ghana.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating patient experience in maternity services using a Bayesian belief network model.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccess to high-quality, person-centred care during pregnancy and childbirth is a global priority. Positive experience of care is key in particular, because it is both a fundamental right and can influence health outcomes and future healthcare utilisation. Despite its importance for accountability and action, systematic guidance on measuring experience of care is limited.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of published literature to identify measures/instruments for experience of facility-based pregnancy and childbirth (abortion, antenatal, intrapartum, postnatal and newborn) care. We systematically searched five bibliographic databases from 1 January 2007 through 1 February 2019. Using a predefined evidence template, we extracted data on study design, data collection method, study population and care type as reported in primary quantitative articles. We report results narratively.
resultsWe retrieved 16 528 unique citations, including 171 eligible articles representing, 157 unique instruments and 144 unique parent instruments across 56 countries. Half of the articles (90/171) did not use a validated instrument. While 82% (n=141) of articles reported on labour and childbirth care, only one reported on early pregnancy/abortion care. The most commonly reported sub-domains of user experience were communication (84%, 132/157) and respect and dignity (71%, 111/157). The primary purpose of most papers was measurement (70%, 119/171), largely through cross-sectional surveys.
conclusionThere are alarming gaps in measurement of user experience for abortion, antenatal, postnatal and newborn care, including lack of validated instruments to measure the effects of interventions and policies on user experience. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS: This review was registered and published on PROSPERO (CRD42017070867). PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care.
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.