Measuring women's experiences of maternity care: A systematic review of self-report survey instruments

Beecher, Claire; Greene, Richard A.; O’Dwyer, Laura M.; Ryan, Ethel; White, Mark; Beattie, Michelle; Devane, Declan

doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2020.05.002

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also searched the studies included in previous reviews that identified PRMs used in pregnancy and childbirth. 2 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 Additional searches were continued until no other relevant studies were found.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In additional searches, a snowballing strategy was applied by going through references in the articles already included in the study, as well as articles citing them. We also searched the studies included in previous reviews that identified PRMs used in pregnancy and childbirth 2,24–30 . Additional searches were continued until no other relevant studies were found.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of implementing patient‐reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review

Chen

Väyrynen

Schmidt

et al. 2022

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:While there is growing interest in applying patient-reported measures (PRMs) in clinical routine, limited collective evidence of the impact of PRMs hinder their widespread use in specific contexts, such as maternity care. Our objective was to synthesize existing emperical evidence on the impact of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care.Material and methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (version 2020). We electronically searched six databases for the literature on the implementation of PRMs in maternity care. A multi-level (woman, clinical, organizational, national and societal) analytic framework for analyzing and synthesizing emperically proven impacts of PRMs was developed.Quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in the review findings and arguments.The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021234501).Results: Overall, 4971 articles were screened. The emperical evidence, collected from 11 relevant studies, showed that the use of PRMs in routine maternity care could produce positive effects on clinical process (assessment and detection of health problems, clinical visit preparation, resource use, woman-professional communication, decision-making, woman-professional relationship, and care quality), and health behavior and outcomes (women's health and wellbeing, quality of life, health behavior, experiences and satisfaction with healthcare services), awareness, engagement and self-management of own health, and disclosure of health issues. The confidence in the review findings was low to moderate due to a limited number of studies, inadequate data and methodological limitations of included studies. Conclusions:The limited emperical evidence available suggested that the use of PRMs may have positive effects at the individual health level and clinical process level. However, the evidence was not strong enough to provide policy recommendations | 1185 CHEN et al.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of implementing patient‐reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review

Chen

Väyrynen

Schmidt

et al. 2022

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Los conceptos utilizados en estos instrumentos fueron descritos por los autores como satisfacción con atención preparto/parto (36,1%), experiencia de parto (27,8 %), percepción del parto/cuidado (13,9 %), control (11,1 %), apoyo (8,3 %), miedo al parto (5,6 %), trauma del parto (2,8 %), recuerdos del nacimiento (2,8 %) y esquema de parto (2,8 %). En contraste, Beecher et al 26 en 40 artículos revisados identificaron 20 instrumentos tipo encuesta por autorreporte y sus autores evaluaron diversas dimensiones como la continuidad de la atención y el suministro de información agrupadas en atención prenatal, intraparto y posnatal.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…De otro lado, el número de ítems incluidos en cada instrumento varió ampliamente de 17 a 211 26 , y los rangos en cuanto al tiempo de aplicación del instrumento fueron de menos de 24 horas hasta 30 meses posparto 22,26 . En cuanto a las escalas de medición, Nilver et al reportaron que predominó la escala de Likert, y en ocho de los 36 estudios se incluyó más de una escala de medición (escala de Likert, opciones de dos respuestas, opciones de múltiples respuestas y escalas de medición de 0-100).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…En cuanto a la calidad de las propiedades psicométricas de medición, Beecher encontró que la mayoría de los instrumentos habían recibido una calificación indeterminada o inconsistente, y que, de aquellos estudios en los que se habían publicado todos los datos de validación, únicamente tres recibieron buena calificación 26 . De igual manera, Nilver et al reportaron que solo 19,4% de los instrumentos analizados se pueden considerar válidos y confiables 22 .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validez facial y de contenido de un instrumento para identificar parto humanizado

Cáceres-Manrique

Camargo-Figuera

Ruiz-Rodríguez

et al. 2022

revsal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: el parto humanizado es considerado un constructo polisémico, multidimensional y multifactorial, dado que no existe una única definición concertada. En este sentido, medir su frecuencia constituye un reto complejo, pues los instrumentos que valoran la experiencia del parto están orientados a determinar la satisfacción de la madre y no han sido validados. En Colombia, el parto humanizado ha sido poco estudiado. Objetivo: diseñar y realizar la validación facial y de contenido de un instrumento para identificación de parto humanizado. Metodología: investigación metodológica llevada a cabo entre marzo de 2019 y febrero de 2020 en seis ciudades de Colombia (Barranquilla, Bogotá, Bucaramanga, Manizales, Medellín y Pasto). El estudio se realizó en cuatro fases: 1) revisión de literatura, 2) construcción del instrumento, 3). adaptación cultural del cuestionario, 4) prueba de validez facial y de contenido con expertos, en dos rondas de calificación. Se calcularon índices de validez facial y contenido para el instrumento y para los componentes de este. Resultados: luego de revisada la literatura, se construyó un instrumento de 38 componentes, que fue adaptado culturalmente por 16 mujeres, y validado a través de una prueba facial y de contenido por parte de 20 expertos. En los resultados de validez, se obtuvo un índice de validez facial para todo el instrumento de 0,89, con un valor mínimo de 0,52 y máximo de 1,0 para los componentes. Se obtuvo un índice de validez de contenido para todo el instrumento de 0,91, con valor mínimo de 0,44 y máximo de 1,0 para los componentes. Hechos los ajustes, se propone un instrumento final conformado por 35 componentes. Conclusión: el instrumento permite identificar la presencia de parto humanizado. Los resultados de las pruebas de validez facial y de contenido avalan su aplicación en el contexto colombiano y su uso para investigaciones futuras.

show abstract

Selecting and Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures to Assess Health System Performance

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patientreported experience measures (PREMs) are critical to evaluating quality and performance across health services and systems. However, the adoption and implementation of PROMs and PREMs remain a challenge in many countries. The aim of this guide is to support instrument selection and implementation to measure health system performance. OBSERVATIONSThe guide is split into 3 step-by-step sections. Step 1: Knowing What to Measure discusses what PROMs and PREMs capture and how they differ from related instruments.Step 2: Choosing the Right Instrument describes the critical psychometric properties of validity, reliability, and responsiveness, and provides resources to support instrument selection and evaluation.Step 3: Mitigating Potential PROM and PREM Implementation Barriers outlines key barriers and supports for instrument implementation at system, service, and individual levels. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis guide aims to provide practical resources for the identification of psychometrically robust PROMs and PREMs, as well as support for their implementation to drive improvements across health systems globally.

show abstract

Measuring women's experiences of maternity care: A systematic review of self-report survey instruments

Cited by 17 publications

References 35 publications

The impact of implementing patient‐reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review

The impact of implementing patient‐reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review

Validez facial y de contenido de un instrumento para identificar parto humanizado

Selecting and Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures to Assess Health System Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About