ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
A Scoping Review of Available Scales and Tools Used to Measure Obstetric Violence.
Article in Journal of advanced 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify and describe instruments used to assess obstetric violence and evaluate their methodological quality and psychometric properties.
designA scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases [Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), SinoMed, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database and China Medical Journal Full-text Database] were searched from inception to June 2025.
methodsStudies focusing on the development or validation of obstetric violence measurement tools were eligible for this review. Methodological quality and psychometric properties were evaluated using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and criteria.
resultsA total of 19 studies encompassing 25 obstetric violence measurement tools were included. These studies were conducted in 15 countries between 2018 and 2025. The tools targeted postnatal and pregnant women, healthcare providers, students and other populations. Most studies reported data on content validity, structural validity and internal consistency. Limited information was available on cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity and responsiveness.
conclusionThis review identified multiple obstetric violence instruments used across diverse populations and settings. Whilst the methodological quality and measurement properties of the included tools were sub-optimal, they nevertheless provide a foundation for the timely assessment of obstetric violence and subsequent research. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Future research should prioritise the establishment of a unified definition of obstetric violence, alongside the development, adaptation and rigorous validation of measurement instruments to enhance their reliability and validity. IMPACT: This review underscores the need for maternity care professionals and educators to critically evaluate existing tools for measuring obstetric violence, given their current methodological limitations. REPORTING
methodThe PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.