IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0322132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women’s experiences of and satisfaction with childbirth: Development and validation of a measurement scale for low- and middle-income countries

Author

Listed:
  • Meghan A Bohren
  • Charbel Abi Saad
  • Charles Kabore
  • Kristi Sidney Annerstedt
  • Claudia Hanson
  • Myriam de Loenzien
  • Simon Tiendrebeogo
  • Fadima Bocoum
  • Marion Ravit
  • Camille Etcheverry
  • Pisake Lumbiganon
  • Nampet Jampathong
  • Guillermo Carroli
  • Celina Gialdini
  • Quoc Nhu Hung Mac
  • Helle Mölsted Alvesson
  • Andrainolo Ravalihasy
  • Alexandre Dumont
  • Ana Pilar Betrán

Abstract

Background: Measuring person-centered maternity care outcomes typically consists of two types of measures: experiences of care and satisfaction with care. There are limited validated measurement tools for these measures, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The QUALI-DEC study aims to improve decision-making around caesarean section. We describe development of the QUALI-DEC Study Birth Experience and Satisfaction (QD-BES) scale, and scale validation in Argentina, Burkina Faso, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Methods: We used a three-phase scale development and validation approach: 1) item development, 2) scale development, and 3) scale evaluation. We systematically identified existing tools, and assessed them using the QUALI-DEC theory of change, study context, and psychometric qualities. We proposed the 10-item QD-BES scale to balance feasibility, theoretical coverage, and comprehensiveness. We conducted a baseline exit survey with post-partum women in 32 hospitals in 4 countries. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: 3127 women participated, most were multiparous (61.0%), without previous caesarean section (77.2%), and preferred vaginal birth (72.8%) despite high rates of caesarean section (39.4%). EFA identified three dimensions: emotional satisfaction (3-items), support and respect by providers (4-items), and communication with providers (3-items), with high loading coefficients (0.5–0.97). CFA confirmed the three-dimension scale, with good model fit (CFI and IFI: 0.95, Cronbach’s alpha: 0.70–0.90). Criterion validity was assessed by exploring characteristics of women, obstetric histories, and birth experiences. Conclusions: We present psychometric validation of a scale measuring women’s satisfaction with care and experiences of childbirth care, using a systematic approach to development and validation in four LMICs. The 10-item QD-BES-scale is short, easily-administered, valid, and reliable. The QD-BES-scale is useful to contribute to the generation of new knowledge about quality of maternity care in LMICs, as well as help to meet the major challenge of implementing and measuring respectful care at scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Meghan A Bohren & Charbel Abi Saad & Charles Kabore & Kristi Sidney Annerstedt & Claudia Hanson & Myriam de Loenzien & Simon Tiendrebeogo & Fadima Bocoum & Marion Ravit & Camille Etcheverry & Pisake L, 2025. "Women’s experiences of and satisfaction with childbirth: Development and validation of a measurement scale for low- and middle-income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-18, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0322132
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322132
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322132&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0322132?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0322132. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.