ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2023
Adaption and validation of the childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ-SK) in Slovakia.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with women's childbirth experience in Slovakia: A cross-sectional analysis of overall childbirth experience and individual domains of the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2 (CEQ2).European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
- Disparities in Toxoplasmosis, "Other" Infections (Syphilis, HIV, Hepatitis Viruses, Varicella-Zoster Virus, and Parvovirus B19), Rubella, Cytomegalovirus, and Herpes Simplex Virus Seroprevalence and Childbirth Experiences between Migrant and Nonmigrant Pregnant Women in Italy: A Single-Center Study.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Observational
- Cultural adaptation, validation and evaluation of the psychometric properties of Childbirth Experience Questionnaire version 2.0 in the Spanish context.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUsing validated and reliable instruments to examine women's birth experiences is important to ensure respectful care. There is a lack of validated instruments for evaluating childbirth care in the Slovak context. In this study, we aimed to adapt and validate the childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) in Slovakia (CEQ-SK).
methodThe CEQ-SK was developed and modified from the English version of the CEQ/CEQ2. Face validity was tested in two pre-tests. A convenience sample, recruited through social media, included 286 women who had given birth within the last six months. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Construct and discriminant validity was assessed by exploratory factor analysis and known-group comparison.
resultsThe exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-dimensional structure, explaining 63.3% of the total variance. The factors were labelled 'Own capacity', 'Professional support' and 'Decision making'. No items were excluded. Internal consistency was demonstrated with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.94 for the total scale. Primiparous women, women who had an emergency cesarean section, and women who had been exposed to the Kristeller manoeuvre had a lower overall score on the CEQ-SK compared to parous women, women having a vaginal birth and women not exposed to the Kristeller manoeuvre.
conclusionThe CEQ-SK was found to be a valid and reliable tool for evaluating childbirth experience in Slovakia. The original CEQ is a four-dimensional questionnaire; however, factor analysis showed a three-dimensional structure in the Slovak sample. This needs to be taken into consideration when comparing the results from the CEQ-SK with studies that use the four-dimensional structure.
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.