Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37978490›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2023

Psychometric assessment of the US person-centered prenatal and maternity care scales in a low-income predominantly Latinx population in California.

Patience A Afulani, Kimberly Coleman-Phox, Daisy Leon-Martinez, Kathy Z Fung, Erica Martinez, Mary A Garza, Charles E McCulloch, Miriam Kuppermann

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's 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
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patience A AfulaniDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, USA. Patience.Afulani@ucsf.edu.
Kimberly Coleman-PhoxDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Daisy Leon-MartinezDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Kathy Z FungDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Erica MartinezCentral Valley Health Policy Institute, College of Health and Human Services, California State University, Fresno, USA.
Mary A GarzaCentral Valley Health Policy Institute, College of Health and Human Services, California State University, Fresno, USA.
Charles E McCullochDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Miriam KuppermannDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USCalifornia State University, Fresno · US

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute AD-2018C2-13227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess psychometric properties of two scales developed to measure the quality of person-centered care during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States-the Person-Centered Prenatal Care (PCPC-US) and Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC-US) scales-in a low-income predominantly Latinx population in California.

methodsData were collected from July 2020 to June 2023 from surveys of low-income pregnant and birthing people in Fresno, California, participating in the "Engaging Mothers and Babies; Reimagining Antenatal Care for Everyone" (EMBRACE) trial. Research staff administered the 26-item PCPC-US scale at 30-34 weeks' gestation (n = 315) and the 35-item PCMC-US scale at 10-14 weeks after birth (n = 286), using the language preferred by the participant (English or Spanish). We assessed construct, criterion, and known group validity and internal consistency of the scales.

results78% of respondents identified as Latinx. Factor analysis identified one dominant factor for each scale that accounted for over 60% of the cumulative variance, with most items loading at > 0.3. The items also loaded adequately on sub-scales for "dignity and respect," "communication and autonomy," and "responsive and supportive care." Cronbach's alpha for the full scales were > 0.9 and between 0.70 and 0.87 for the sub-scales. Summative scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher person-centered care. Correlations with scores on scales measuring prenatal care quality and birth experience provided evidence for criterion validity, while associations with known predictors provided evidence for known-group validity.

conclusionsThe PCPC-US and PCMC-US scales, which were developed using a community-engaged process and found to have good psychometric properties in a largely high-income sample of Black women, were shown to also have good psychometric properties in a sample of low-income primarily Latinx women. Both scales provide valid and reliable tools to measure person-centered care experiences among minoritized communities to support efforts to reduce existing birth inequities.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesObstetricsPatient-Centered CareCaliforniaFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansPregnancyPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesIntrapartum careLatinxLow-incomePerson-centered carePrenatal careQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID37978490
PMCPMC10656820
OpenAlexW4388759243

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.