IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0182991.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ResQu Index: A new instrument to appraise the quality of research on birth place

Author

Listed:
  • Saraswathi Vedam
  • Chris Rossiter
  • Caroline S E Homer
  • Kathrin Stoll
  • Vanessa L Scarf

Abstract

Objective: Place of birth is a known determinant of health care outcomes, interventions and costs. Many studies have examined the maternal and perinatal outcomes when women plan to give birth in hospitals compared with births in birth centres or at home. However, these studies vary substantially in rigour; assessing their quality is challenging. Existing research appraisal tools do not always capture important elements of study design that are critical when comparing outcomes by planned place of birth. To address this deficiency, we aimed to develop a reliable instrument to rate the quality of primary research on maternal and newborn outcomes by place of birth. Study design: The instrument development process involved five phases: 1) generation of items and a weighted scoring system; 2) content validation via a quantitative survey and a modified Delphi process with an international, multi-disciplinary panel of experts; 3) inter-rater consistency; 4) alignment with established research appraisal tools; and 5) pilot-testing of instrument usability. Results: A Birth Place Research Quality Index (ResQu Index) was developed comprising 27 scored items that are summed to generate a weighted composite score out of 100 for studies comparing planned place of birth. Scale content validation indices were .89 for clarity, .94 for relevance and .90 for importance. The Index demonstrated substantial inter-rater consistency; pilot-testing confirmed feasibility and user-friendliness. Conclusion: The ResQu Index is a reliable instrument to evaluate the quality of design, methods and interpretation of reported outcomes from research about place of birth. Higher-scoring studies have greater potential to inform evidence-based selection of birth place by clinicians, policy makers, and women and their families. The Index can also guide the design of future research on place of birth.

Suggested Citation

  • Saraswathi Vedam & Chris Rossiter & Caroline S E Homer & Kathrin Stoll & Vanessa L Scarf, 2017. "The ResQu Index: A new instrument to appraise the quality of research on birth place," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182991
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182991
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182991&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0182991?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanessa Scarf & Christine Catling & Rosalie Viney & Caroline Homer, 2016. "Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pueyo, Maria-Jesus & Escuriet, Ramon & Pérez-Botella, M. & de Molina, I. & Ruíz-Berdun, D. & Albert, S. & Díaz, S. & Torres-Capcha, P. & Ortún, V., 2018. "Health policies for the reduction of obstetric interventions in singleton full-term births in Catalonia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(4), pages 367-372.
    2. David A. Anderson & Gabrielle M. Gilkison, 2021. "The Cost of Home Birth in the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-8, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182991. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.