ArticleJournal of patient experience2025
Validity and Reliability of the Newly Developed Patient-Reported Experience Measures Tool for Effectively Assessing the Quality of Care and Patient Safety During Antenatal Services.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maternal mortality and morbidity do not adequately represent women's healthcare experiences. Traditional clinical outcomes must be complemented with tools that assess patients' subjective experiences to provide a comprehensive view of care effectiveness. The proposed Antenatal Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM) tool, developed with input from women who have experienced maternity care, highlights relevant aspects for pregnant mothers and ensures reliability and cross-cultural validation. A multiphase study conducted in 15 Indian hospitals employed purposive sampling. Phase 1 involved forming an expert group, conducting focus group discussions, establishing a standard operating procedure, and creating the PREM Questionnaire. Phases 2 and 3 included a pilot study with 220 participants and a field study with 518 respondents. A PREM tool with 22 expert-sourced questions achieved an internal consistency value of 0.7205, indicating acceptable reliability. The mean content validity index was 0.998, demonstrating high validity, and the content validity ratio was 0.95. Experts deemed 21 out of 22 questions essential. The PREM tool displayed good reliability and strong content validity. The validated PREM enhances antenatal care outcomes by prioritizing women's perspectives.
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.