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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Quality of perinatal care services from the user’s perspective: a Dutch study applies the World Health Organization’s responsiveness concept

Authors: Jacoba van der Kooy, Erwin Birnie, Nicole B. Valentine, Johanna P. de Graaf, Semiha Denktas, Eric A. P. Steegers, Gouke J. Bonsel

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The concept of responsiveness was introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) to address non-clinical aspects of service quality in an internationally comparable way. Responsiveness is defined as aspects of the way individuals are treated and the environment in which they are treated during health system interactions.
The aim of this study is to assess responsiveness outcomes, their importance and factors influencing responsiveness outcomes during the antenatal and delivery phases of perinatal care.

Method

The Responsiveness in Perinatal and Obstetric Health Care Questionnaire was developed in 2009/10 based on the eight-domain WHO concept and the World Health Survey questionnaire. After ethical approval, a total of 171 women, who were 2 weeks postpartum, were recruited from three primary care midwifery practices in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, using face-to-face interviews. We dichotomized the original five ordinal response categories for responsiveness attainment as ‘poor’ and good responsiveness and analyzed the ranking of the domain performance and importance according to frequency scores. We used a series of independent variables related to health services and users’ personal background characteristics in multiple logistic regression analyses to explain responsiveness.

Results

Poor responsiveness outcomes ranged from 5.9% to 31.7% for the antenatal phase and from 9.7% to 27.1% for the delivery phase. Overall for both phases, ‘respect for persons’ (Autonomy, Dignity, Communication and Confidentiality) domains performed better and were judged to be more important than ‘client orientation’ domains (Choice and Continuity, Prompt Attention, Quality of Basic Amenities, Social Consideration). On the whole, responsiveness was explained more by health-care and health related issues than personal characteristics.

Conclusion

To improve responsiveness outcomes caregivers should focus on domains in the category ‘client orientation’.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(12):1829–43.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, Olesen F, Grol R. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(10):1573–88.CrossRefPubMed
4.
McPake B. User charges for health services in developing countries: a review of the economic literature. Soc Sci Med. 1993;36(11):1397–405.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR (eds.): Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Evaluation and program planning; 1983.
6.
Wouters A. Essential national health research in developing countries: heath care financing and the quality of care. Int J Health Planning Manage. 1991;6:253–71.CrossRef
7.
Gilson L, Alilio M, Heggenhougen K. Community satisfaction with primary health care services: an evaluation undertaken in the Morogoro region of Tanzania. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39(6):767–80.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Greener I. Towards a history of choice in UK health policy. Sociol Health Illn. 2009;31(3):309–24.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Valentine NB, de Silva A, Kawabata K, Darby C, Murray CJL, Evans DB. Health system responsiveness: concepts, domains and measurement. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2003.
11.
de Silva A. A framework for measuring responsiveness. Global Programme on evidence for health policy discussion paper. No. 32. Geneva: World Health Organisation. 2000.
12.
Gostin L. The domains of health responsiveness: a human rights assessment. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2002.
13.
14.
Mohangoo AD, Buitendijk SE, Hukkelhoven CW, Ravelli AC, Rijninks-van Driel GC, Tamminga P, Nijhuis JG. Higher perinatal mortality in The Netherlands than in other European countries: the Peristat-II study. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008;152(50):2718–27.PubMed
15.
Ravelli AC, Tromp M, van Huis M, Steegers EA, Tamminga P, Eskes M, Bonsel GJ. Decreasing perinatal mortality in The Netherlands, 2000-2006: a record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(9):761–5.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zeitlin J, Wildman K, Breart G, Alexander S, Barros H, Blondel B, Buitendijk S, Gissler M, Macfarlane A. PERISTAT: indicators for monitoring and evaluating perinatal health in Europe. Eur J Pub Health. 2003;13(Suppl 3):29–37.CrossRef
17.
EURO-PERISTAT project in collaboration with SCPE EaE 2008. European perinatal health report. Better statistics for better health for pregnant women and their babies in, vol. 2004.
18.
19.
Christiaens W, Gouwy A, Bracke P. Does a referral from home to hospital affect satisfaction with childbirth? A cross-national comparison. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
21.
Wiegers TA, van der Zee J, Keirse MJ. Transfer from home to hospital: what is its effect on the experience of childbirth? Birth. 1998;25(1):19–24.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Valentine NB, Bonsel GJ, Murray CJ. Measuring quality of health care from the user's perspective in 41 countries: psychometric properties of WHO's questions on health systems responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(7):1107–25.CrossRefPubMed
23.
van der Kooy J, Valentine NB, Birnie E, Vujkovic M, de Graaf JP, Denktas S, Steegers EA, Bonsel GJ. Validity of a questionnaire measuring the world health organization concept of health system responsiveness with respect to perinatal services in the dutch obstetric care system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):622.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Valentine NB, Verdes E, Bonsel GJ. Health systems’ responsiveness and reporting behaviour: multilevel analysis of individual-level factors contributing to reporting behaviour heterogeneity in 64 countries. Soc Sci Med. 2015;138:152–60.
25.
Hosseinpoor AR, Stewart Williams JA, Itani L, Chatterji S. Socioeconomic inequality in domains of health: results from the world health surveys. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:198.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
27.
Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1(4):368–76.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1087–91.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Rijnders M, Baston H, Schonbeck Y, van der Pal K, Prins M, Green J, Buitendijk S. Perinatal factors related to negative or positive recall of birth experience in women 3 years postpartum in the Netherlands. Birth. 2008;35(2):107–16.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Liabsuetrakul T, Petmanee P, Sanguanchua S, Oumudee N. Health system responsiveness for delivery care in southern Thailand. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(2):169–75.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Luo Q, Wang Q, Lu Z, Liu J. Evaluation of responsiveness of community health services in urban China: a quantitative study in Wuhan City. PLoS One. 8(5):e62923.
33.
Zweifler J, Hughes S, Lopez RA. Controlling for race/ethnicity: a comparison of California commercial health plans CAHPS scores to NCBD benchmarks. Int J Equity Health. 2010;9:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Raleigh VS, Hussey D, Seccombe I, Hallt K. Ethnic and social inequalities in women’s experience of maternity care in England: results of a national survey. J R Soc Med. 2010;103(5):188–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA, Winbladh B. The Stockholm birth centre trial: maternal and infant outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(4):410–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Waldenstrom U, Rudman A, Hildingsson I. Intrapartum and postpartum care in Sweden: women’s opinions and risk factors for not being satisfied. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(5):551–60.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Valentine N, Darby C, Bonsel GJ. Which aspects of non-clinical quality of care are most important? Results from WHO's general population surveys of “health systems responsiveness” in 41 countries. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(9):1939–50.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Bramesfeld A, Wedegartner F, Elgeti H, Bisson S. How does mental health care perform in respect to service users’ expectations? Evaluating inpatient and outpatient care in Germany with the WHO responsiveness concept. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
40.
Boshuizen HC, Viet AL, Picavet HS, Botterweck A, van Loon AJ. Non-response in a survey of cardiovascular risk factors in the Dutch population: determinants and resulting biases. Public Health. 2006;120(4):297–308. Epub 2005 Dec 20CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
van Teijlingen ER, Hundley V, Rennie AM, Graham W, Fitzmaurice A. Maternity satisfaction studies and their limitations: “what is, must still be best”. Birth. 2003;30(2):75–82.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Quality of perinatal care services from the user’s perspective: a Dutch study applies the World Health Organization’s responsiveness concept
Authors
Jacoba van der Kooy
Erwin Birnie
Nicole B. Valentine
Johanna P. de Graaf
Semiha Denktas
Eric A. P. Steegers
Gouke J. Bonsel
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1464-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Family context and individual situation of teens before, during and after pregnancy in Mexico City

Research article

Maternal iodine status during lactation and infant weight and length in Henan Province, China

Research article

Understanding the implementation of maternity waiting homes in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative thematic synthesis

Research article

Pregnant women’s preferences for and concerns about preterm birth prevention: a cross-sectional survey

Research article

Factors influencing implementation of interventions to promote birth preparedness and complication readiness

Research article

Do experiences with pregnancy, birth and postnatal care in Norway vary by the women’s geographic origin? a comparison of cross-sectional survey results