Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37817135›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2023

Measuring women's experiences during antenatal care (ANC): scoping review of measurement tools.

Hedieh Mehrtash, Karin Stein, Maria Barreix, Mercedes Bonet, Meghan A Bohren, Özge Tunçalp

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Exploring Women's Perceived Quality of Antenatal Care: A Cross-Sectional Study in The Netherlands.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Hedieh MehrtashUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. mehrtashh@who.int.
Karin SteinUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Maria BarreixUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Mercedes BonetUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Meghan A BohrenGender and Women's Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Özge TunçalpUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe new WHO model for antenatal care (ANC) focuses on improving practice, organisation and delivery of ANC within health systems, which includes both clinical care and women's experiences of care. The goal of this review is to identify tools and measures on women's experiences of ANC.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify tools and measures on women's experiences of ANC. An iterative approach was used to review all tools in a series of four steps: (1) identify papers between 2007 and 2023; (2) identify the tools from these papers; (3) map relevant measures to conceptualizations of experiences of care, notably mistreatment of women and respectful maternity care and (4) identify gaps and opportunities to improve measures.

resultsAcross the 36 tools identified, a total of 591 measures were identified. Of these, 292/591 (49.4%) measures were included and mapped to the typology of mistreatment of women used as a definition for women's experiences care during ANC in this review, while 299/591 (44.9%) irrelevant measures were excluded. Across the included measures, the highest concentration was across the domains of poor rapport between women and providers (49.8%) followed by failure to meet professional standards of care (23.3%). Approximately, 13.9% of measures were around overall respectful care, followed by health systems (6.3%), and any  physical or verbal abuse, stigma and/or discrimination (4.8%) .

conclusionThis analysis provides an overview of the existing tools, gaps and opportunities to measure women's experiences during ANC. Expanding beyond the childbirth period, these findings can be used to inform existing and future tools for research and monitoring measuring women's experiences of ANC.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesPrenatal CareFemaleHumansParturitionPregnancyAntenatal careMeasurementRespectful maternity careWomen's experiences of care

Identifiers

PMID37817135
PMCPMC10565981

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.