BackgroundPerson-centered reproductive health care is recognized as critical to improving reproductive health outcomes. Yet, little research exists on how to operationalize it. We extend the literature in this area by developing and validating a tool to measure person-centered maternity care. We describe the process of developing the tool and present the results of psychometric analyses to assess its validity and reliability in a rural and urban setting in Kenya.MethodsWe followed standard procedures for scale development. First, we reviewed the literature to define our construct and identify domains, and developed items to measure each domain. Next, we conducted expert reviews to assess content validity; and cognitive interviews with potential respondents to assess clarity, appropriateness, and relevance of the questions. The questions were then refined and administered in surveys; and survey results used to assess construct and criterion validity and reliability.ResultsThe exploratory factor analysis yielded one dominant factor in both the rural and urban settings. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than one were identified for the rural sample and four factors identified for the urban sample. Thirty of the 38 items administered in the survey were retained based on the factors loadings and correlation between the items. Twenty-five items load very well onto a single factor in both the rural and urban sample, with five items loading well in either the rural or urban sample, but not in both samples. These 30 items also load on three sub-scales that we created to measure dignified and respectful care, communication and autonomy, and supportive care. The Chronbach alpha for the main scale is greater than 0.8 in both samples, and that for the sub-scales are between 0.6 and 0.8. The main scale and sub-scales are correlated with global measures of satisfaction with maternity services, suggesting criterion validity.ConclusionsWe present a 30-item scale with three sub-scales to measure person-centered maternity care. This scale has high validity and reliability in a rural and urban setting in Kenya. Validation in additional settings is however needed. This scale will facilitate measurement to improve person-centered maternity care, and subsequently improve reproductive outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-017-0381-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Despite recognition that person-centered care is a critical component to providing high quality family planning services, there lacks consensus on how to operationalize and measure it. This paper describes the development and validation of a person-centered family planning (PCFP) scale in India and Kenya. Cross-sectional data were collected from 522 women in Kenya and 225 women in India who visited a health facility providing family planning services. Psychometric analyses, including exploratory factor analysis, were employed to assess the validity and reliability of the PCFP scale. Separate scales were developed for India and Kenya due to context-specific items. We assessed criterion validity by examining the association between PCFP and global measures of quality and satisfaction with family planning care. The analysis resulted in a multidimensional PCFP scale, including 20 items in Kenya and 22 items in India. Through iterative factor analysis, two subscales were identified for both countries: "autonomy, respectful care, and communication" and "health facility environment." This scale may be used to evaluate quality improvement interventions and experiences of women globally to support women in achieving their reproductive health goals.

Background Globally, there has been increasing attention to women’s experiences of care and calls for a person-centered care approach. At the heart of this approach is the patient-provider relationship. It is necessary to examine the extent to which providers and women agree on the care that is provided and received. Studies have found that incongruence between women’s and providers’ perceptions may negatively impact women’s compliance, satisfaction, and future use of health facilities. However, there are no studies that examine patient and provider perspectives on person-centered care. Methods To fill this gap in the literature, we use cross-sectional data of 531 women and 33 providers in seven government health facilities in Kenya to assess concordance and discordance in person-centered care measures. Additionally, we analyze 41 in-depth interviews with providers from three of these facilities to examine why differences in reporting may occur. Descriptive statistical methods were used to measure the magnitude of differences between reports of women and reports of providers. Thematic analyses were conducted for provider surveys. Results Our findings suggest high discordance between women and providers’ perspectives in regard to person-centered care experiences. On average, women reported lower levels of person-centered care compared to providers, including low respectful and dignified care, communication and autonomy, and supportive care. Providers were more likely to report higher rates of poor health facility environment such as having sufficient staff. We summarize the overarching reasons for the divergence in women and provider reports as: 1) different understanding or interpretation of person-centered care behaviors, and 2) different expectations, norms or values of provider behaviors. Providers rationalized abuse towards women, did not allow a companion of choice, and blamed women for poor patient-provider communication. Women lacked assurance in privacy and confidentiality, and faced challenges related to the health facility environment. Providers attributed poor person-centered care to both individual and facility/systemic factors. Conclusions Implications of this study suggests that providers should be trained on person-centered care approaches and women should be counseled on understanding patient rights and how to communicate with health professionals.

Objective Despite the recognized importance of person‐centered care, very little information exists on how person‐centered maternity care (PCMC) impacts newborn health. Methods Baseline and follow‐up data were collected from women who delivered in government health facilities in Nairobi and Kiambu counties in Kenya between August 2016 and February 2017. The final analytic sample included 413 respondents who completed the baseline survey and at least one follow‐up survey at 2, 6, 8, and/or 10 weeks. Data were analyzed using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistics. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between PCMC scores and outcomes of interest. Results In multivariate analyses, women with high PCMC scores were significantly less likely to report newborn complications than women with low PCMC scores (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.98). Women reporting high PCMC scores also had significantly higher odds of reporting a willingness to return to the facility for their next delivery than women with low PCMC score (aOR 12.72, 95% CI 2.26–71.63). The domains of Respect/Dignity and Supportive Care were associated with fewer newborn complications and willingness to return to a facility. Conclusion PCMC could improve not just the experience of the mother during childbirth, but also the health of her newborn and future health‐seeking behavior.

Many patients in low-income countries express preferences for high-quality health care but often end up with low-quality providers. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with pregnant women in Nairobi, Kenya, to analyze whether cash transfers, enhanced with behavioral "nudges," can help women deliver in facilities that are consistent with their preferences and are of higher quality. We tested two interventions. The first was a labeled cash transfer (LCT), which explained that the cash was to help women deliver where they wanted. The second was a cash transfer that combined labeling and a commitment by the recipient to deliver in a prespecified desired facility as a condition of receiving the final payment (L-CCT). The L-CCT improved patient-perceived quality of interpersonal care but not perceived technical quality of care. It also increased women's likelihood of delivering in facilities that met standards for routine and emergency newborn care but not the likelihood of delivering in facilities that met standards for obstetric care. The LCT had fewer measured benefits. Women preferred facilities with high technical and interpersonal care quality, but these quality measures were often negatively correlated within facilities. Even with cash transfers, many women still used poor-quality facilities. A larger study is warranted to determine whether the L-CCT can improve maternal and newborn outcomes.