ArticleBMJ open2022
WHO standards-based tool to measure women's views on the quality of care around the time of childbirth at facility level in the WHO European region: development and validation in Italy.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of negative birth experience: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Health workers' perspectives on the quality of maternal and newborn health care around the time of childbirth: Results of the Improving MAternal Newborn carE in the EURO Region (IMAgiNE EURO) project in 12 countries of the World Health Organization European Region.Journal of global health · 2024Trial
- Article
- The Association Between Women's Perception of Birth During the Pandemic, Companion of Choice and Support From Health Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study in 20 Countries in the WHO European Region.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2025Article
- Quality of care at childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium: a cross-sectional study based on WHO standards.BMJ open · 2024Observational
- Trends in the quality of maternal and neonatal care in Sweden and Norway as compared to 12 WHO European countries: A cross-sectional survey investigating maternal perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Observational
- Getting breastfeeding started under pandemic visiting restrictions: lessons learned in Germany.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Article
- Women's experiences of disrespect and abuse in Swiss facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative analysis of an open-ended question in the IMAgiNE EURO study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Women's suggestions on how to improve the quality of maternal and newborn care: A qualitative analysis from the IMAgiNE EURO survey in Italy during the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic.European journal of midwifery · 2024Article
- Factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding in Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic: a subset of the IMAgiNE EURO cross-sectional study.International breastfeeding journal · 2023Observational
- Women's suggestions on how to improve the quality of maternal and newborn care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: A co-occurrence network analysis.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- Quality of maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth for migrant versus nonmigrant women during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study in 11 countries of the WHO European region.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Article
- Women's perspectives on the quality of maternal and newborn care in childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia: Results from the IMAgiNE EURO study on 40 WHO standards-based quality measures.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Observational
- Women's assessment of the quality of hospital-based perinatal care by mode of birth in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the IMAgiNE EURO study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Observational
- Women's perspectives on the quality of hospital maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the IMAgiNE EURO study in Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Observational
- Rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean and quality of maternal and newborn health care in private versus public facilities: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study in 16 countries.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Observational
- Quality of maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth in Luxembourg during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022Article
- Science and beyond science in the reporting of quality of facility-based maternal and newborn care during the COVID-19 pandemic-Authors' reply.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Article
- Quality of Informed Consent Practices around the Time of Childbirth: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA comprehensive WHO standards-based tool to measure women's perceived quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) in health facilities is needed to allow for comparisons of data across settings and over time. This paper describes the development of such a tool, and its validation in Italy.
designA multiphase, mixed-methods study involving qualitative and quantitative research methods.
settingNine health facilities in Italy.
methodsThe questionnaire was developed in six phases: (1) Defining the scope, characteristics and a potential list of measures for the tool; (2) initial content and construct validation; (3) first field testing to assess acceptability and perceived utility for end-users (1244 women, 35 decision makers) and further explore construct validity; (4) content optimisation and score development; (5) assessment of face validity, intrarater reliability and internal consistency and (6) second field testing in nine maternity hospitals (4295 women, 78 decision-makers).
resultsThe final version of the tool included 116 questions accounting for 99 out of the 350 of the extended lists of WHO Quality Measures. Observed face validity was very good, with 100% agreement for 101 (87%) questions and Kappa exceeding 0.60 for remaining ones. Reliability was good, with either high agreement or Kappa exceeding 0.60 for all items. Cronbach alpha values ranged from 0.84 to 0.88, indicating very good internal consistency. Acceptability across seven hospitals was good (mean response rate: 57.4%, 95% CI 44.4% to 70.5%). The questionnaire proved to be useful, driving the development of actions plan to improve the QMNC in each facility.
conclusionsStudy findings suggest that the tool has good content, construct, face validity, intrarater reliability and internal consistency, while being acceptable and useful. Therefore, it could be used in health facilities in Italy and similar context. More research should investigate how effectively use the tool in different countries for improving the QMNC.
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.