ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2025
Adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Quality from Patient Perspective-Intrapartal (QPP-I) questionnaire to assess childbirth care.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs midwifery shifts to a holistic, women-centered model, assessing care quality from the patient's perspective is crucial. The lack of standardized tools in Poland forces reliance on invalidated
methodsThe Polish QPP-I was adapted and validated through a cross-cultural study. A pilot (25 women) and a multicenter study (153 women) were conducted 2-3 days postpartum, with a test-retest after 2-4 weeks. Convenience sampling was used, with data collected via online and paper questionnaires. The pilot ran in late 2019, and the main study (February 2020-March 2021) spanned five maternity wards. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion relevance were analyzed.
resultsThe questionnaire was well-received by the target group, requiring minimal cultural adaptation. QPP-I PL demonstrated high internal consistency (α=0.935 for the 1st testing, α=0.95 for the test-retest) and good validity (mean Kendall W=0.65). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Most items showed good reliability (α >0.70). The Perceived Reality (PR) subscale had high reliability (α=0.90), while the Subjective Importance (SI) subscale reached α=0.93, confirming the appropriateness of all items. However, indicators related to participation in decision-making and midwifery attendance showed poor internal consistency. The mean alpha coefficient in the test-retest further supported good reliability (α=0.65).
conclusionsThe Polish version of the QPP-I questionnaire demonstrates good validity and reliability for assessing the quality of perinatal care from the patient's perspective. The questionnaire reflects the Polish perinatal care context while maintaining the original tool's integrity.
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.