Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research article

Women’s experiences of maternity care in England: preliminary development of a standard measure

Authors: Maggie Redshaw, Colin R. Martin, Emily Savage-McGlynn, Sian Harrison

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

As maternity services evolve and the population of women served also changes, there is a continuing need to effectively document the views of women with recent experience of care. A woman’s maternity experience can have a positive or negative effect upon her emotional well-being and health, in the immediate and the long-term, which can also impact the infant and the wider family system. Measuring women’s perceptions of maternity services is an important way of monitoring the quality of care provision, as well as providing key indicators to organisations of the services that they are providing. It follows that, without information identifying possible areas in need of improvement, it is not clear what changes should be made to improve the experiences of women during their journey through maternity services from pregnancy to the early weeks at home with a new baby .
The objective is to describe the development process and psychometric properties of a measure of women’s experience of maternity care covering the three distinctly different phases of maternity – pregnancy, labour and birth, and the early postnatal period.

Methods

Data from a national survey of women who had recently given birth (n = 504) were used. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic methods were employed. The measure was assessed for underlying latent factor structure, as well as for reliability, internal consistency, and validity (predictive, convergent and discriminant).

Results

The models developed confirmed the use of three separate, but related scales about experience of maternity care during pregnancy, labour and birth and the postnatal period. Data reduction was effective, resulting in a measure with 36 items (12 per scale).

Conclusion

The need for a psychometrically robust and qualitatively comprehensive measure of women’s experience of maternity care has been addressed in the development and validation of this prototype measure. The whole measure can be used at one time point, or the three separate subscales used as individual measures of experience during particular phases of the maternity journey with identified factor structures in their own right.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lundgren I. Swedish women’s experience of childbirth 2 years after birth. Midwifery. 2005;21(4):346–54.PubMedCrossRef Lundgren I. Swedish women’s experience of childbirth 2 years after birth. Midwifery. 2005;21(4):346–54.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Simkin P. Just another day in a woman’s life? Women's long-term perceptions of their first birth experience. Part I. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1991;18(4):203–10.PubMedCrossRef Simkin P. Just another day in a woman’s life? Women's long-term perceptions of their first birth experience. Part I. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1991;18(4):203–10.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Simkin P. Just another day in a woman’s life? Part II: Nature and consistency of women's long-term memories of their first birth experiences. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1992;19(2):64–81.PubMedCrossRef Simkin P. Just another day in a woman’s life? Part II: Nature and consistency of women's long-term memories of their first birth experiences. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1992;19(2):64–81.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Silver RM, Siassakos D, Dudley DJ. Pregnancy after stillbirth: anxiety and a whole lot more. BJOG. 2017;125(2):211.PubMedCrossRef Silver RM, Siassakos D, Dudley DJ. Pregnancy after stillbirth: anxiety and a whole lot more. BJOG. 2017;125(2):211.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Henderson J, Redshaw M. Who is well after childbirth? Factors related to positive outcome. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 2013;40(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRef Henderson J, Redshaw M. Who is well after childbirth? Factors related to positive outcome. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 2013;40(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Schytt E, Waldenstrom U. Risk factors for poor self-rated health in women at 2 months and 1 year after childbirth. J Women’s Health (2002). 2007;16(3):390–405.CrossRef Schytt E, Waldenstrom U. Risk factors for poor self-rated health in women at 2 months and 1 year after childbirth. J Women’s Health (2002). 2007;16(3):390–405.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C, Radestad I. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 2004;31(1):17–27.PubMedCrossRef Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C, Radestad I. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 2004;31(1):17–27.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Tinkler A, Quinney D. Team midwifery: the influence of the midwife-woman relationship on women's experiences and perceptions of maternity care. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:30–5.PubMedCrossRef Tinkler A, Quinney D. Team midwifery: the influence of the midwife-woman relationship on women's experiences and perceptions of maternity care. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:30–5.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Care Quality Commission. National findings from the 2015 survey of women’s experiences of maternity care. London: CQC; 2015. Care Quality Commission. National findings from the 2015 survey of women’s experiences of maternity care. London: CQC; 2015.
10.
go back to reference Healthcare Commission. Towards better births: a review of maternity services in England. London: Healthcare Commission; 2008. Healthcare Commission. Towards better births: a review of maternity services in England. London: Healthcare Commission; 2008.
11.
go back to reference Garcia J, Redshaw M, Fitzsimons B, Keene J. First class delivery: a national survey of women's views of maternity care. Audit Commission: UK; 1998. Garcia J, Redshaw M, Fitzsimons B, Keene J. First class delivery: a national survey of women's views of maternity care. Audit Commission: UK; 1998.
12.
go back to reference Henderson J, Redshaw M. Change over time in women’s views and experiences of maternity care in England, 1995-2014: a comparison using survey data. Midwifery. 2017;44:35–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Henderson J, Redshaw M. Change over time in women’s views and experiences of maternity care in England, 1995-2014: a comparison using survey data. Midwifery. 2017;44:35–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Jomeen J, Martin CR. The impact of choice of maternity care on psychological health outcomes for women during pregnancy and the postnatal period. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:391–8.PubMedCrossRef Jomeen J, Martin CR. The impact of choice of maternity care on psychological health outcomes for women during pregnancy and the postnatal period. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:391–8.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Green JM, Coupland VA, Kitzinger JV. Expectations, experiences, and psychological outcomes of childbirth: a prospective study of 825 women. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1990;17(1):15–24.PubMedCrossRef Green JM, Coupland VA, Kitzinger JV. Expectations, experiences, and psychological outcomes of childbirth: a prospective study of 825 women. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1990;17(1):15–24.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hodnett ED. Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000, Issue 1. Art. No: CD000062. Hodnett ED. Continuity of caregivers for care during pregnancy and childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000, Issue 1. Art. No: CD000062.
17.
go back to reference Rowe RE, Garcia J, Macfarlane AJ, Davidson LL. Improving communication between health professionals and women in maternity care: a structured review. Health Expect. 2002;5(1):63–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Rowe RE, Garcia J, Macfarlane AJ, Davidson LL. Improving communication between health professionals and women in maternity care: a structured review. Health Expect. 2002;5(1):63–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bowers J, Cheyne H, Mould G, Page M. Continuity of care in community midwifery. Health Care Manag Sci. 2015;18(2):195–204.PubMedCrossRef Bowers J, Cheyne H, Mould G, Page M. Continuity of care in community midwifery. Health Care Manag Sci. 2015;18(2):195–204.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cabana MD, Jee SH. Does continuity of care improve patient outcomes? J Fam Pract. 2004;53(12):974–80.PubMed Cabana MD, Jee SH. Does continuity of care improve patient outcomes? J Fam Pract. 2004;53(12):974–80.PubMed
20.
go back to reference McCourt C, Page L, Hewison J, Vail A. Evaluation of one-to-one midwifery: women's responses to care. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1998;25(2):73–80.PubMedCrossRef McCourt C, Page L, Hewison J, Vail A. Evaluation of one-to-one midwifery: women's responses to care. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1998;25(2):73–80.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bramadat IJ, Driedger M. Satisfaction with childbirth: theories and methods of measurement. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1993;20(1):22–9.PubMedCrossRef Bramadat IJ, Driedger M. Satisfaction with childbirth: theories and methods of measurement. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1993;20(1):22–9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Redshaw M. Women as consumers of maternity care: measuring “satisfaction” or “dissatisfaction”? Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 2008;35(1):73–6.PubMedCrossRef Redshaw M. Women as consumers of maternity care: measuring “satisfaction” or “dissatisfaction”? Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 2008;35(1):73–6.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Perriman N, Davis D. Measuring maternal satisfaction with maternity care: a systematic integrative review: what is the most appropriate, reliable and valid tool that can be used to measure maternal satisfaction with continuity of maternity care? Women Birth. 2016;29(3):293–9.PubMedCrossRef Perriman N, Davis D. Measuring maternal satisfaction with maternity care: a systematic integrative review: what is the most appropriate, reliable and valid tool that can be used to measure maternal satisfaction with continuity of maternity care? Women Birth. 2016;29(3):293–9.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hodnett ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5 Suppl Nature):S160–72.PubMed Hodnett ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5 Suppl Nature):S160–72.PubMed
25.
26.
go back to reference Care Quality Commission. Technical details - patient survey information 2015 Maternity survey. London: CQC; 2015. Care Quality Commission. Technical details - patient survey information 2015 Maternity survey. London: CQC; 2015.
28.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Rowe R, Hockley C, Brocklehurst P. Recorded delivery: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2006. Oxford: NPEU; 2007. Redshaw M, Rowe R, Hockley C, Brocklehurst P. Recorded delivery: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2006. Oxford: NPEU; 2007.
29.
go back to reference Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782–6.PubMedCrossRef Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782–6.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Martin C, Rowe R, Hockley C. The Oxford worries about labour scale: women's experience and measurement characteristics of a measure of maternal concern about labour and birth. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14(3):354–66.PubMedCrossRef Redshaw M, Martin C, Rowe R, Hockley C. The Oxford worries about labour scale: women's experience and measurement characteristics of a measure of maternal concern about labour and birth. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14(3):354–66.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Martin CR. Validation of a perceptions of care adjective checklist. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(2):281–8.PubMedCrossRef Redshaw M, Martin CR. Validation of a perceptions of care adjective checklist. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(2):281–8.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference NHS England. The friends and family test. 2014. NHS England. The friends and family test. 2014.
33.
go back to reference Hodnett ED, Simmons-Tropea DA. The labour Agentry scale: psychometric properties of an instrument measuring control during childbirth. Res Nurs Health. 1987;10(5):301–10.PubMedCrossRef Hodnett ED, Simmons-Tropea DA. The labour Agentry scale: psychometric properties of an instrument measuring control during childbirth. Res Nurs Health. 1987;10(5):301–10.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Geerts CC, Klomp T, Lagro-Janssen AL, Twisk JW, van Dillen J, de Jonge A. Birth setting, transfer and maternal sense of control: results from the DELIVER study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Geerts CC, Klomp T, Lagro-Janssen AL, Twisk JW, van Dillen J, de Jonge A. Birth setting, transfer and maternal sense of control: results from the DELIVER study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Haines HM, Pallant JF, Fenwick J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Toohill J, et al. Identifying women who are afraid of giving birth: a comparison of the fear of birth scale with the WDEQ-A in a large Australian cohort. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2015;6(4):204–10.PubMedCrossRef Haines HM, Pallant JF, Fenwick J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Toohill J, et al. Identifying women who are afraid of giving birth: a comparison of the fear of birth scale with the WDEQ-A in a large Australian cohort. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2015;6(4):204–10.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Pallant JF, Haines HM, Green P, Toohill J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, et al. Assessment of the dimensionality of the Wijma delivery expectancy/experience questionnaire using factor analysis and Rasch analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):361.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Pallant JF, Haines HM, Green P, Toohill J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, et al. Assessment of the dimensionality of the Wijma delivery expectancy/experience questionnaire using factor analysis and Rasch analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):361.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Goodman P, Mackey MC, Tavakoli AS. Factors related to childbirth satisfaction. J Adv Nurs. 2004;46(2):212–9.PubMedCrossRef Goodman P, Mackey MC, Tavakoli AS. Factors related to childbirth satisfaction. J Adv Nurs. 2004;46(2):212–9.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Fleming SE, Donovan-Batson C, Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Birth satisfaction scale/birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS/BSS-R): a large scale United States planned home birth and birth Centre survey. Midwifery. 2016;41:9–15.PubMedCrossRef Fleming SE, Donovan-Batson C, Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Birth satisfaction scale/birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS/BSS-R): a large scale United States planned home birth and birth Centre survey. Midwifery. 2016;41:9–15.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Martin CR, Hollins Martin CJ, Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Donovan-Batson C, Fleming SE. Measurement and structural invariance of the US version of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R) in a large sample. Women Birth. 2016;30(4):e172–8.PubMedCrossRef Martin CR, Hollins Martin CJ, Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Donovan-Batson C, Fleming SE. Measurement and structural invariance of the US version of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R) in a large sample. Women Birth. 2016;30(4):e172–8.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Lomas J, Dore S, Enkin M, Mitchell A. The Labor and Delivery Satisfaction Index: the development and evaluation of a soft outcome measure. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1987;14(3):125–9.PubMedCrossRef Lomas J, Dore S, Enkin M, Mitchell A. The Labor and Delivery Satisfaction Index: the development and evaluation of a soft outcome measure. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 1987;14(3):125–9.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Bernitz S, Oian P, Sandvik L, Blix E. Evaluation of satisfaction with care in a midwifery unit and an obstetric unit: a randomized controlled trial of low-risk women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):143.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bernitz S, Oian P, Sandvik L, Blix E. Evaluation of satisfaction with care in a midwifery unit and an obstetric unit: a randomized controlled trial of low-risk women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):143.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Brocklehurst P, MacArthur C, Moore P, Wilson M, Bick D, Briley A, et al. A multicentre, randomised controlled trial of position during the late stages of labour in women with an epidural-(bumpes). BJOG. 2016;123(Suppl 2):61. Brocklehurst P, MacArthur C, Moore P, Wilson M, Bick D, Briley A, et al. A multicentre, randomised controlled trial of position during the late stages of labour in women with an epidural-(bumpes). BJOG. 2016;123(Suppl 2):61.
44.
go back to reference Lee N, Webster J, Beckmann M, Gibbons K, Smith T, Stapleton H, et al. Comparison of a single vs. a four intradermal sterile water injection for relief of lower back pain for women in labour: a randomised controlled trial. Midwifery. 2013;29(6):585–91.PubMedCrossRef Lee N, Webster J, Beckmann M, Gibbons K, Smith T, Stapleton H, et al. Comparison of a single vs. a four intradermal sterile water injection for relief of lower back pain for women in labour: a randomised controlled trial. Midwifery. 2013;29(6):585–91.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Heikkila K. Delivered with care: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2010. Oxford: NPEU; 2010. Redshaw M, Heikkila K. Delivered with care: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2010. Oxford: NPEU; 2010.
46.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely delivered: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2014. Oxford: NPEU; 2014. Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely delivered: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2014. Oxford: NPEU; 2014.
47.
go back to reference Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, Gyte G, Rabe H, Duley L. Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:108.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, Gyte G, Rabe H, Duley L. Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:108.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
go back to reference NHS England. National Maternity Review: better births - improving outcomes of maternity services in England - a five year forward view for maternity care. 2016. NHS England. National Maternity Review: better births - improving outcomes of maternity services in England - a five year forward view for maternity care. 2016.
49.
go back to reference Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010.
50.
go back to reference Kline P. A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association Books; 2000. Kline P. A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association Books; 2000.
51.
go back to reference Martin CR, Savage-McGlynn E. A ‘good practice’ guide for the reporting of design and analysis for psychometric evaluation. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2013;31(5):449–55.CrossRef Martin CR, Savage-McGlynn E. A ‘good practice’ guide for the reporting of design and analysis for psychometric evaluation. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2013;31(5):449–55.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 2014. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 2014.
53.
go back to reference Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.
54.
go back to reference Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s guide: sixth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2011. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s guide: sixth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2011. 
55.
go back to reference R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing Vienna. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing Vienna. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
56.
go back to reference Kline P. The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge; 1993. Kline P. The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge; 1993.
57.
go back to reference Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the evaluation of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88:588–606.CrossRef Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the evaluation of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88:588–606.CrossRef
58.
go back to reference Hu LT, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modelling: concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modelling: concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.
59.
go back to reference Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010.
61.
62.
go back to reference Team RC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna; 2013. Team RC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna; 2013.
63.
64.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. Core outcome set-STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002148.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. Core outcome set-STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002148.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
go back to reference Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core outcome set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core outcome set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
go back to reference Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:MR000008. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:MR000008.
67.
go back to reference National Research Council. Nonresponse in Social Science Surveys: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. National Research Council. Nonresponse in Social Science Surveys: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
68.
go back to reference Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med (1982). 1997;45(12):1829–43.CrossRef Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med (1982). 1997;45(12):1829–43.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Women’s experiences of maternity care in England: preliminary development of a standard measure
Authors
Maggie Redshaw
Colin R. Martin
Emily Savage-McGlynn
Sian Harrison
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2284-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2019 Go to the issue