SynthesisBMC public health2026
Women's reported experience of respectful maternity care measures worldwide: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Overcoming barriers and harnessing facilitators: Respectful maternity care in least-developed countries - a systematic review.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Correction: Women's reported experience of respectful maternity care measures worldwide: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring women's experiences of Respectful Maternity Care (RMC) requires valid and reliable tools. Although several RMC tools exist, their methodological quality has not been thoroughly evaluated.
aimTo evaluate the quality of women's-reported experience of RMC measures worldwide.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (reference number CRD42024585853). The review followed the PRISMA guideline and employed the PICO framework. Peer-reviewed English-language studies published between 2014 and 2025 were included. The search targeted articles on Women Reported Experience Measures (WREMs) of RMC, with at least one psychometric property. Data were presented using Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments' (COSMIN) method. Tools were evaluated for methodological bias, item development, study quality, measurement properties, evidence synthesis, and certainty grading using the COSMIN.
resultsThis review included 47 articles on the creation and psychometric assessment of 22 measures. Evidence indicating the scale development of each tool was inadequate. The risk of bias evaluation revealed inadequate methodological quality. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were insufficient or not undertaken. Many measures were deemed inadequate in terms of criterion, cross-cultural, and structural validity. Responsiveness was reported in one tool and measurement errors were not reported in any tool. Currently, there is no level A recommended scale for measuring RMC.
conclusionThis review provided a comprehensive evaluation of the available tools to measure RMC. The quality of measurement properties of WREMs of RMC was inadequate. Future studies should develop and validate a standardised tool to measure women-reported experiences of RMC.
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.