Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34930243›Full record

SynthesisBMC women's health2021

Women empowerment in reproductive health: a systematic review of measurement properties.

Maryam Vizheh, Salut Muhidin, Zahra Behboodi Moghadam, Armin Zareiyan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maryam VizhehDepartment of Reproductive Health and Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-8281-3405
Salut MuhidinDepartment of Management, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. salut.muhidin@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7780-8580
Zahra Behboodi MoghadamDepartment of Reproductive Health and Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. behboodi@tums.ac.ir.ORCID 0000-0002-4708-3590
Armin ZareiyanPublic Health Department, Health in Disaster & Emergencies Department, Nursing Faculty, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6983-0569
Aja University of Medical Sciences · IRIranshahr University · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRMacquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is a considerable dearth of official metrics for women empowerment, which is pivotal to observe universal progress towards Sustainable Development Goals 5, targeting "achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls." This study aimed to introduce, critically appraise, and summarize the measurement properties of women empowerment scales in sexual and reproductive health.

methodsA comprehensive systematic literature search through several international electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest, and Science Direct was performed on September 2020, without a time limit. All studies aimed to develop and validate a measurement of women empowerment in sexual and reproductive health were included. The quality assessment was performed through a rating scale addressing the six criteria, including: a priori explicit theoretical framework, evaluating content validity, internal consistency, and factor analysis to assess structural validity.

resultsOf 5234 identified studies, fifteen were included. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States. All studies but one used a standardized measure. Total items of each scale ranged from 8 to 23. The most common domains investigated were decision-making, freedom of coercion, and communication with the partner. Four studies did not use any conceptual framework. The individual agency followed by immediate relational agency were the main focus of included studies. Of the included studies, seven applied either literature review, expert panels, or empirical methods to develop the item pool. Cronbach's alpha coefficient reported in nine studies ranged from α = 0.56 to 0.87. Most of the studies but three lack reporting test-retest reliability ranging r = 0.69-0.87. Nine studies proved content validity. Six criteria were applied to scoring the scales, by which nine of fifteen articles were rated as medium quality, two rated as poor quality, and four rated as high quality.

conclusionMost scales assessed various types of validity and Internal consistency for the reliability. Applying a theoretical framework, more rigorous validation of scales, and assessing the various dimensions of women empowerment in diverse contexts and different levels, namely structural agency, are needed to develop effective and representing scales.

Indexed as

EmpowermentReproductive HealthFemaleHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesMeasurementPsychometricsReliabilityReproductive healthValidityWomen empowerment

Identifiers

PMID34930243
PMCPMC8690621
OpenAlexW4200272202

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.