Measuring Client Experiences in Maternity Care under Change: Development of a Questionnaire Based on the WHO Responsiveness Model

Marisja Scheerhagen, Henk F van Stel, Erwin Birnie, Arie Franx and Gouke J Bonsel

PLOS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, issue 2, 1-19

Abstract: Background: Maternity care is an integrated care process, which consists of different services, involves different professionals and covers different time windows. To measure performance of maternity care based on clients' experiences, we developed and validated a questionnaire. Methods and Findings: We used the 8-domain WHO Responsiveness model, and previous materials to develop a self-report questionnaire. A dual study design was used for development and validation. Content validity of the ReproQ-version-0 was determined through structured interviews with 11 pregnant women (≥28 weeks), 10 women who recently had given birth (≤12 weeks), and 19 maternity care professionals. Structured interviews established the domain relevance to the women; all items were separately commented on. All Responsiveness domains were judged relevant, with Dignity and Communication ranking highest. Main missing topic was the assigned expertise of the health professional. After first adaptation, construct validity of the ReproQ-version-1 was determined through a web-based survey. Respondents were approached by maternity care organizations with different levels of integration of services of midwives and obstetricians. We sent questionnaires to 605 third trimester pregnant women (response 65%), and 810 women 6 weeks after delivery (response 55%). Construct validity was based on: response patterns; exploratory factor analysis; association of the overall score with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), known group comparisons. Median overall ReproQ score was 3.70 (range 1–4) showing good responsiveness. The exploratory factor analysis supported the assumed domain structure and suggested several adaptations. Correlation of the VAS rating and overall ReproQ score (antepartum, postpartum) supported validity (r = 0.56; 0.59, p

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117031 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 17031&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0117031

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117031

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().