ArticlePloS one2025
The assessment of psychometric properties of childbirth violence questionnaire in Iranian women.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Women's reported experience of respectful maternity care measures worldwide: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundChildbirth violence is a cultural and social issue with a complex and multidimensional nature that silently threatens women's health around the world. Thus, designing an instrument based on social norms and the cultural context of society is an essential need. The study aims to develop and validate a measurement instrument that assesses childbirth violence, focusing on the experiences of women during childbirth.
methodsThe study utilized a mixed-methods approach which is a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies and evaluated a new tool for assessing violence during childbirth. It included three main phases: Instrument Development, Validity, and Reliability. The instrument's validity was tested through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To assess sampling adequacy, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index. Multiple extraction and rotation techniques were employed to determine the optimal questionnaire structure.
resultsAfter completing the qualitative phase, the research team focused on two key themes: the violation of pregnant mothers' rights within the healthcare system and societal factors contributing to violence against pregnant mothers. 99 items were identified based on participants' perspectives and interviews. Existing questionnaires on respectful maternal care were reviewed, but none specifically targeted childbirth violence. A comprehensive pool of 108 items was refined to a preliminary questionnaire with 65 items for psychometric testing. EFA, based on maximum likelihood and varimax rotation, concealed that questionnaire contains four factors including; psychological and physical abuse, non-professional care, delay in offering care and lack of family support. These factors explained 63.276% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha (0.88-0.90), (ICC = 0.95 (and (SEM = 3.2), confirmed the sufficient reliability of the Childbirth Violence Questionnaire with 34 items (CBVQ-34).
conclusionsThe CBVQ is a unique tool to assess childbirth violence through mothers' experiences during natural birth or emergency cesarean sections. It focuses on violence from care teams, the health system, and families, unlike existing tools that mainly highlight the care team's relationship with the mother. The CBVQ also considers the health system's structures and family support, distinguishing it from other tools.
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.