ArticleBMC women's health2026
Development and psychometric evaluation of the post-disaster women's sexual and reproductive health assessment scale.
Article in BMC women's health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to develop a standardized measurement tool with robust psychometric properties to assess women’s sexual and reproductive health after disasters.
methodThis methodological study was conducted between May and August 2023 among sexually active women aged 18–49 living in temporary shelters (tents or containers) in earthquake-affected areas of Türkiye (Kahramanmaraş, Malatya, and Gaziantep) following the earthquakes centred in Kahramanmaraş on 6 February 2023. Pregnant women and women diagnosed with psychological disorders were excluded from the study. A total of 540 women who voluntarily agreed to participate were included in the study using convenience sampling. Content validity was assessed through expert opinions, and the content validity index (I-CVI) and Kendall’s W coefficient, while construct validity was assessed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Reliability was evaluated based on internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha and item-total correlation coefficients, and time-invariance was examined via a test-retest procedure. The initial pool of 28 items was reduced to a final scale consisting of 15 items based on the results of the validity and reliability analyses.
resultsA pool of 28 items, developed based on key principles of post-disaster women’s health and a comprehensive literature review, was presented to seven midwifery experts for evaluation in terms of content and clarity. The exploratory factor analysis resulted in a structure consisting of 15 items, explaining 74.423% of post-disaster women’s sexual and reproductive health assessment, and 5 factors: personal hygiene, access to healthcare personnel, contraception, sexual life, and safety. According to the confirmatory factor analysis, this structure with 15 items and 5 factors had good fit indices and was validated as a model. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients for the factors ranged from 0.672 to 0.933, with an overall scale value of 0.800. Additionally, high correlations were observed in the test-retest-analysis of the scale.
conclusionA valid and reliable measurement tool to evaluate women’s sexual and reproductive health after disasters was obtained in this study. This scale provides a comprehensive assessment of women’s health after disasters, offering a unique and scientifically robust tool that can be utilized both in academic research and field applications, thereby making a significant contribution to the literature.
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.