Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Assessing Dutch women’s experiences of labour and birth: adaptations and psychometric evaluations of the measures Mothers on Autonomy in Decision Making Scale, Mothers on Respect Index, and Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2.0

Authors: L. L. Peters, M. S. G. van der Pijl, S. Vedam, W. S. Barkema, M. T. van Lohuizen, D. E. M. C. Jansen, E. I. Feijen-de Jong

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making Scale (MADM) assesses women’s autonomy and role in decision making. The Mothers on Respect Index (MORi) asseses women’s experiences of respect when interacting with their healthcare providers. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2.0 assesses the overall experience of childbirth (CEQ2.0). There are no validated Dutch measures of the quality of women’s experiences in the intrapartum period. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of these measures in their Dutch translations.

Methods

The available Dutch versions of the MADM and MORi were adapted to assess experiences in the intrapartum period. The CEQ2.0 was translated by using forward-backward procedures. The three measures were included in an online survey including items on individual characteristics (i.e. maternal, birth, birth interventions). Reliability was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alphas. Mann-Whitney, Kruskal Wallis or Student T-tests were applied where appropriate, to assess discrimination between women who differed on individual characteristics (known group validity). We hypothesized that women who experienced pregnancy complications and birth interventions would have statistically lower scores on the MADM, MORi and CEQ2.0, compared with women who had healthy pregnancies and physiological births. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman Rank correlations between the MADM, MORi and/or CEQ2.0. We hypothesized moderate to strong correlations between these measures. Women’s uptake of and feedback on the measures were tracked to assess acceptability and clarity.

Results

In total 621 women were included in the cross sectional study. The calculated Cronbach’s alphas for the MADM, MORi and CEQ, were ≥ 0.77. Knowngroup validity was confirmed through significant differences on all relevant individual characteristics, except for vaginal laceration repair. Spearman Rank correlations ranged from 0.46-0.80. In total 98% of the included women out of the eligible population completed the MADM and MORi for each healthcare professional they encountered during childbirth. The proportions of MADM and MORi-items which were difficult to complete ranged from 0.0-10.8%, 0.6-2.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

The results of our study showed that the Dutch version of the MADM, MORi and CEQ2.0 in Dutch are valid instruments that can be used to assess women’s experiences in the intrapartum period.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Vogel JP, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ӧ, Oladapo OT, Gülmezoglu AM. Promoting respect and preventing mistreatment during childbirth. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(5):671–4.CrossRef
3.
Oladapo OT, Tunçalp Ö, Bonet M, Lawrie TA, Portela A, Downe S, et al. WHO model of intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience: transforming care of women and babies for improved health and wellbeing. Bjog. 2018;125(8):918.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Heatley ML, Watson B, Gallois C, Miller YD. Women's perceptions of communication in pregnancy and childbirth: influences on participation and satisfaction with care. J Health Commun. 2015;20(7):827–34.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Dunn JT, Lesyna K, Zaret A. The role of human rights litigation in improving access to reproductive health care and achieving reductions in maternal mortality. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(2):367.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Khosla R, Zampas C, Vogel JP, Bohren MA, Roseman M, Erdman JN. International human rights and the mistreatment of women during childbirth. Health Hum Rights. 2016;18(2):131.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
8.
Windau-Melmer T. A guide for advocating for respectful maternity care. Washington, DC: Futures Group. Health Policy Project; 2013. p. 1–4.
9.
Baas CI, Wiegers TA, de Cock TP, Erwich JJHM, Spelten ER, De Boer MR, et al. Client-related factors associated with a “less than good” experience of midwifery care during childbirth in the Netherlands. Birth. 2017;44(1):58–67.PubMedCrossRef
10.
van Stenus CMV, Gotink M, Boere-Boonekamp MM, Sools A, Need A. Through the client’s eyes: using narratives to explore experiences of care transfers during pregnancy, childbirth, and the neonatal period. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):1–12.CrossRef
11.
Hollander MH, van Hastenberg E, van Dillen J, Van Pampus MG, de Miranda E, Stramrood CAI. Preventing traumatic childbirth experiences: 2192 women’s perceptions and views. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2017;20(4):515–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Feijen-de Jong EI, van der Pijl M, Vedam S, Jansen D, Peters LL. Measuring respect and autonomy in Dutch maternity care: applicability of two measures. Women Birth. 2020;33(5):e447–e54.PubMedCrossRef
13.
van der Pijl MS, Kasperink M, Hollander MH, Verhoeven C, Kingma E, de Jonge A. Client-care provider interaction during labour and birth as experienced by women: respect, communication, confidentiality and autonomy. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0246697.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Smarandache A, Kim TH, Bohr Y, Tamim H. Predictors of a negative labour and birth experience based on a national survey of Canadian women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):1–9.CrossRef
15.
Vedam S, Stoll K, Taiwo TK, Rubashkin N, Cheyney M, Strauss N, et al. The giving voice to mothers study: inequity and mistreatment during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):1–18.CrossRef
16.
Elmir R, Schmied V, Wilkes L, Jackson D. Women’s perceptions and experiences of a traumatic birth: a meta-ethnography. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(10):2142–53.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hauck Y, Fenwick J, Downie J, Butt J. The influence of childbirth expectations on Western Australian women's perceptions of their birth experience. Midwifery. 2007;23(3):235–47.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Vedam S, Stoll K, Martin K, Rubashkin N, Partridge S, Thordarson D, et al. The Mother’s autonomy in decision making (MADM) scale: patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171804.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Vedam S, Stoll K, Rubashkin N, Martin K, Miller-Vedam Z, Hayes-Klein H, et al. The mothers on respect (MOR) index: measuring quality, safety, and human rights in childbirth. SSM Popul Health. 2017;3:201–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Dencker A, Bergqvist L, Berg M, Greenbrook JTV, Nilsson C, Lundgren I. Measuring women's experiences of decision-making and aspects of midwifery support: a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Childbirth Experience Questionnaire. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:1990. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12884-020-02869-0.
22.
Ghanbari-Homayi S, Dencker A, Fardiazar Z, Jafarabadi MA, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Meedya S, et al. Validation of the Iranian version of the childbirth experience questionnaire 2.0. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):465.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Walker KF, Dencker A, Thornton JG. Childbirth experience questionnaire 2: validating its use in the United Kingdom. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;5:100097.CrossRef
24.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin J-B. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):1–10.CrossRef
26.
Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1992.
27.
28.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed; 1978.
29.
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. USA: Oxford University Press; 2015.CrossRef
30.
Chapman A, Nagle C, Bick D, Lindberg R, Kent B, Calache J, et al. Maternity service organisational interventions that aim to reduce caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analyses. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):206.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Downe S, Finlayson K, Oladapo O, Bonet M, Gülmezoglu AM. What matters to women during childbirth: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0194906.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Nystedt A, Högberg U, Lundman B. The negative birth experience of prolonged labour: a case–referent study. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(5):579–86.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Karlström A, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I. The meaning of a very positive birth experience: focus groups discussions with women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):1–8.CrossRef
34.
Larsson B, Hildingsson I, Ternström E, Rubertsson C, Karlström A. Women’s experience of midwife-led counselling and its influence on childbirth fear: a qualitative study. Women Birth. 2019;32(1):e88–94.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Keedle H, Peters L, Schmied V, Burns E, Keedle W, Dahlen HG. Women’s experiences of planning a vaginal birth after caesarean in different models of maternity care in Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):1–15.CrossRef
36.
Perdok H, Verhoeven CJ, van Dillen J, Schuitmaker TJ, Hoogendoorn K, Colli J, et al. Continuity of care is an important and distinct aspect of childbirth experience: findings of a survey evaluating experienced continuity of care, experienced quality of care and women’s perception of labor. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Organization WH. Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities. 2016.
38.
Taylor R. Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagn Med Sonography. 1990;6(1):35–9.CrossRef
39.
De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide: Cambridge university press; 2011.
40.
41.
42.
Hodnett ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:160–74.
43.
Waldenstrom U. Why do some women change their opinion about childbirth over time? Birth. 2004;31:102–7.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
Hildingsson I. Women's birth expectations, are they fulfilled? Findings from a longitudinal Swedish cohort study. Women Birth. 2015;28(2):e7–e13.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessing Dutch women’s experiences of labour and birth: adaptations and psychometric evaluations of the measures Mothers on Autonomy in Decision Making Scale, Mothers on Respect Index, and Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2.0
Authors
L. L. Peters
M. S. G. van der Pijl
S. Vedam
W. S. Barkema
M. T. van Lohuizen
D. E. M. C. Jansen
E. I. Feijen-de Jong
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04445-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2022 Go to the issue

Research article

Effect of initial COVID-19 outbreak during first trimester on pregnancy outcome in Wuxi, China

Research

Prevalence and associated factors of oligohydramnios in pregnancies beyond 36 weeks of gestation at a tertiary hospital in southwestern Uganda

Case report

Severe intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy due to a Sertoli-Leydig cell tumour in a woman with polycystic ovary syndrome: a case report

Research

The effect of mildly stimulated cycle versus artificial cycle on pregnancy outcomes in overweight/obese women with PCOS prior to frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study

Research

Examining socioeconomic status disparities in facility-based childbirth in Kenya: role of perceived need, accessibility, and quality of care

Research article

Characteristics of the gut microbiota in pregnant women with fetal growth restriction