ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Meaningfulness, feasibility, and usability of quality-of-care measures for maternal and infant health: A structured mixed-methods review.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Moving forward, leaving the patients behind? A multilevel assessment framework for evaluating patient-centred, integrated care quality.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Improving access to and quality of maternal and infant healthcare are important leverage points to address worsening maternal and infant health disparities in the USA. This study evaluates the comprehensiveness of existing maternal and infant quality-of-care measures to identify aspects of quality that need greater attention in quality measurement. Study design: We conducted a structured, team-based qualitative review of 88 maternal and infant health measures indexed by the National Quality Forum (NQF), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). We assessed discrete elements relevant to meaningfulness, feasibility, and usability following AHRQ National Quality Strategy (NQS) criteria, with input from researcher, clinician, and citizen scientist investigators. Descriptive statistics on coded measures were calculated using SPSS. Results: The most common AHRQ NQS priorities addressed were mortality (60%) and safety (48%). Average scores across elements were 59% for feasibility, 61% for practice usability, and 31% for policy usability. Fewer measures addressed coordination, affordability, or patient engagement in the postpartum period. Only 23% of measures were endorsed by NQF, only 17% of measures had publicly available benchmarks, and only 14% had specifications updated in the year prior to review. Conclusions: Findings from this study can inform the specification of a comprehensive, updated system for maternal and infant quality-of-care evaluation and can facilitate the development of new quality-of-care measures that address underrepresented maternal and infant health issues.
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.