Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38926698›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

Medical ethics in childbirth: a structural equation modeling approach in south of Iran.

Moghaddameh Mirzaee, Firoozeh Mirzaee

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Moghaddameh MirzaeeInstitute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Firoozeh MirzaeeReproductive and family health research center,, Kerman university of medical sciences, Kerman, Iran. f_mirzaee@kmu.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe existence of a valid instrument to evaluate the attitude of mothers towards compliance with medical ethics during childbirth can lead to appropriate interventions to create a positive attitude. The purpose of this study is to determine the construct validity of the MEAVDQ (Medical Ethics Attitude in Vaginal Delivery Questionnaire).

methodsThe study was carried out with 350 women. The main research instrument was MEAVDQ. This 59-item questionnaire comprises three parts A, B, J. Part A is concerned with the first principles. Part B deals with the second and third principles and part J addresses the fourth principle of medical ethics. Structural Equations Modeling (SEM) was used to determine the construct validity of MEAVDQ.

resultsThe results of SEM revealed that there was a positive correlation between structures A and B. The relationship between structures B and J was also positive and significant. On the other hand, there was a direct and indirect relationship between structures A and J. One-unit increase in structure A led to 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.33) direct increase in structure J. Also, one-unit increase score increases in structure A caused 0.39 indirect rise (95% CI: 0.26, 0.53) in structure J with the mediating role of the structure B.

conclusionsIt can be suggested to midwifery policy maker and midwives that respect for the first principle of medical ethics and autonomy is the most important principle of medical ethics in childbirth. By respecting the autonomy of mothers, a positive birth experience can be created for them.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricEthics, MedicalParturitionAdultFemaleHumansIranLatent Class AnalysisMothersPregnancyReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAttitudeMedical ethicsStructural equation ModelVaginal child birthValidation

Identifiers

PMID38926698
PMCPMC11202324

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.