ArticleBMC nursing2026
Validity and reliability of the quality of midwifery childbirth care from women's perspectives scale among Japanese women: a cross-sectional online survey.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional evaluations of maternity care have predominantly relied on outcome-based indicators. However, quality should also be evaluated based on women’s psychological and emotional responses. Seven key concepts reflecting enhanced midwifery care from women’s perspectives were identified. As existing tools do not fully capture these elements, the Quality of Midwifery Childbirth Care from Women’s Perspectives (QuMiCW) scale was developed. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the QuMiCW scale.
methodsA web-based survey was conducted among Japanese women who had given birth within the past 10 years. Structural validity was examined through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the least squares method and promax rotation on half of the sample, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using covariance structure analysis on the remaining half. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ) between the initial and 1-month follow-up scores. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α. For hypothesis testing, correlations between the QuMiCW and both the Japanese version of the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R) and the Japanese Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire (JW-DEQ) Version B were examined. The study was conducted in accordance with COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments guidelines.
resultsA total of 714 women were included in the analysis. EFA of the 18 items identified three factors: “fulfilling needs and support,” “protection of dignity,” and “empowerment and reassurance.” The CFA model demonstrated a good fit (GF index = 0.990, adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.987, normed fit index = 0.987, relative fit index = 0.985, and standardized root mean square residual = 0.047). Test-retest reliability was high, with a ρ of 0.71 for the total score. Internal consistency was also high (Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.94). A positive correlation was observed with the BSS-R (ρ = 0.53), whereas a negative correlation was found with the JW-DEQ version B (ρ = −0.44).
conclusionsThe QuMiCW demonstrated reliability and validity among Japanese mothers. It may be used to evaluate and improve midwifery childbirth care from a woman’s perspective.
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.