Measuring women's experiences of maternity care: A systematic review of self-report survey instruments

Women's suggestions on how to improve the quality of maternal and newborn care: A qualitative analysis from the IMAgiNE EURO survey in Italy during the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

Collecting women's views and suggestions for improving quality of maternal-newborn care (QMNC) is a crucial aspect of maternity care evaluation often overlooked in Italy and globally. Childbearing women experienced numerous challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic including the rapid and significant reorganization of maternity services and care. Their perspective on what to prioritize for QMNC improvement is hence pivotal. The aim of this study was to explore maternal suggestions for QMNC improvement from women who gave birth during the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Data were collected from an open-ended question included in a validated online questionnaire administered to mothers who gave birth in an Italian hospital between November 2020 to March 2022. The responses were analyzed using thematic analysis and mapped against the WHO Standards for improving QMNC and the WHO Framework of QMNC.

RESULTS

The thematic analysis identified five main themes from the 2017 responses: 1) Support for mothers during the postnatal period; 2) Better use of resources; 3) Improvement of the maternity environment; 4) Reconsideration of organizational aspects; and 5) Guarantee of respectful practices. Women commented on all dimensions of the WHO framework except for two provision of care subdomains 'actionable information and functional referral systems'.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first qualitative study in Italy focusing on women's suggestions for improving QMNC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its findings can be used to inform what aspects of QMNC need improvement in Italy. Collection of women's views should be incorporated in routine monitoring of the QMNC, and data should be used for quality improvement purposes.

Patient reported outcome measures in childbirth and postpartum maternal quality of life: a protocol for systematic review of measurement properties

Background

Patient centred healthcare is the corner stone to many healthcare strategies. Patient specific health needs should be at the fore of healthcare improvements and quality measurements. Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) that support real world clinical effectiveness assessments are increasingly being used to highlight domains where there is the greatest scope for change.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to identify and evaluate existing patient reported assessment measures/tool(s) that can be used in developing a PROM for postpartum women. We will assess and evaluate their measurement properties in a transparent and structured way in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines.

Methods

Methodological guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs have been developed by the COSMIN initiative and will be followed for this systematic review. A systematic literature review will be performed using PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to the present day. Two reviewers independently will judge eligibility, conduct data extraction and assess the methodological quality of each study as per COSMIN guidelines. Inclusion criteria: studies should concern PROM with an aim to evaluate measurement properties in the development or the evaluation of a PROM of interest. Included PROM will focus upon postpartum women assessing morbidity and quality of care. All peer reviewed studies with an assessment tool designed for patient completion will be considered. Exclusion criteria; abstract, letters and non-peer reviewed publications. Studies will be graded on measurement properties and quality of evidence as laid out by COSMIN. All studies and characteristics eligible for inclusion will be summarised and a recommendation to the most suitable measurement tool(s) will be given.

Discussion

We will provide a comprehensive description of all available patient reported assessment tools available for childbirth and postpartum quality of life and recommend based on COSMIN guidelines the most suitable instrument(s) available for use.

Psychometric properties of the experiences of maternity care scale among Iranian women

BACKGROUND

Assessing women's perceptions of the care they receive is crucial for evaluating the quality of maternity care. Women's perceptions are influenced by the care received during pregnancy, labour and birth, and the postpartum period, each of which with unique conditions, expectations, and requirements. In England, three Experience of Maternity Care (EMC) scales - Pregnancy, Labour and Birth, and Postnatal - have been developed to assess women's experiences from pregnancy through the postpartum period. This study aimed to validate these scales within the Iranian context.

METHODS

A methodological cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2022 to August 2023 at selected health centers in Tabriz, Iran. A panel of 16 experts assessed the qualitative and quantitative content validity of the scales and 10 women assessed the face validity. A total of 540 eligible women, 1-6 months postpartum, participated in the study, with data from 216 women being used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and 324 women for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and other analyses. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire-2 was employed to assess the convergent validity of the Labour and Birth Scale, whereas women's age was used to assess the divergent validity of the scales. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were also examined.

RESULTS

All items obtained an impact score above 1.5, with Content Validity Ratio and Content Validity Index exceeding 0.8. EFA demonstrated an excellent fit with the data (all Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measures > 0.80, and all Bartlett's p < 0.001). The Pregnancy Scale exhibited a five-factor structure, the Labour and Birth Scale a two-factor structure, and the Postnatal Scale a three-factor structure, explaining 66%, 57%, and 62% of the cumulative variance, respectively, for each scale. CFA indicated an acceptable fit with RMSEA ≤ 0.08, CFI ≥ 0.92, and NNFI ≥ 0.90. A significant correlation was observed between the Labour and Birth scale and the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire-2 (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). No significant correlation was found between the scales and women's age. All three scales demonstrated good internal consistency (all Cronbach's alpha values > 0.9) and test-retest reliability (all interclass correlation coefficient values > 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The Persian versions of all three EMC scales exhibit robust psychometric properties for evaluating maternity care experiences among urban Iranian women. These scales can be utilized to assess the quality of current care, investigate the impact of different care models in various studies, and contribute to maternal health promotion programs and policies.

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

Respectful Maternity Care : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Severe maternal morbidity and mortality are worse in the United States than in all similar countries, with the greatest effect on Black women. Emerging research suggests that disrespectful care during childbirth contributes to this problem.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review on definitions and valid measurements of respectful maternity care (RMC), its effectiveness for improving maternal and infant health outcomes for those who are pregnant and postpartum, and strategies for implementation.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, and SocINDEX for English-language studies (inception to July 2023).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions of RMC versus usual care for effectiveness studies; additional qualitative and noncomparative validation studies for definitions and measurement studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual data abstraction and quality assessment using established methods, with resolution of disagreements through consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-seven studies were included across all questions, of which 1 provided insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of RMC to improve maternal outcomes and none studied RMC to improve infant outcomes. To define RMC, authors identified 12 RMC frameworks, from which 2 main concepts were identified: disrespect and abuse and rights-based frameworks. Disrespect and abuse components focused on recognizing birth mistreatment; rights-based frameworks incorporated aspects of reproductive justice, human rights, and antiracism. Five overlapping framework themes include freedom from abuse, consent, privacy, dignity, communication, safety, and justice. Twelve tools to measure RMC were validated in 24 studies on content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency, but lack of a gold standard limited evaluation of criterion validity. Three tools specific for RMC had at least 1 study demonstrating consistency internally and with an intended construct relevant to U.S. settings, but no single tool stands out as the best measure of RMC.

LIMITATIONS

No studies evaluated other health outcomes or RMC implementation strategies. The lack of definition and gold standard limit evaluation of RMC tools.

CONCLUSION

Frameworks for RMC are well described but vary in their definitions. Tools to measure RMC demonstrate consistency but lack a gold standard, requiring further evaluation before implementation in U.S. settings. Evidence is lacking on the effectiveness of implementing RMC to improve any maternal or infant health outcome.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42023394769).

Perinatal care in SARS-CoV-2 infected women: the lesson learnt from a national prospective cohort study during the pandemic in Italy

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing importance given to ensuring high-quality childbirth, perinatal good practices have been rapidly disrupted by SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This study aimed at describing the childbirth care provided to infected women during two years of COVID-19 emergency in Italy.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study enrolling all women who gave birth with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 7 days from hospital admission in the 218 maternity units active in Italy during the periods February 25, 2020-June 30, 2021, and January 1-May 31, 2022. Perinatal care was assessed by evaluating the prevalence of the following indicators during the pandemic: presence of a labour companion; skin-to-skin; no mother-child separation at birth; rooming-in; breastfeeding. Logistic regression models including women' socio-demographic, obstetric and medical characteristics, were used to assess the association between the adherence to perinatal practices and different pandemic phases.

RESULTS

During the study period, 5,360 SARS-CoV-2 positive women were enrolled. Overall, among those who had a vaginal delivery (n = 3,574; 66.8%), 37.5% had a labour companion, 70.5% of newborns were not separated from their mothers at birth, 88.1% were roomed-in, and 88.0% breastfed. These four indicators showed similar variations in the study period with a negative peak between September 2020 and January 2021 and a gradual increase during the Alpha and Omicron waves. Skin-to-skin (mean value 66.2%) had its lowest level at the beginning of the pandemic and gradually increased throughout the study period. Among women who had a caesarean section (n = 1,777; 33.2%), all the indicators showed notably worse outcomes with similar variations in the study period. Multiple logistic regression analyses confirm the observed variations during the pandemic and show a lower adherence to good practices in southern regions and in maternity units with a higher annual number of births.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the rising trend in the studied indicators, we observed concerning substandard childbirth care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Continued efforts are necessary to underscore the significance of the experience of care as a vital component in enhancing the quality of family-centred care policies.

Development and psychometric testing of a Chinese version of the postnatal care experience scale for postpartum women

BACKGROUND

Postnatal period is a critical transitional phase in the lives of mothers and newborn babies. In recent years the importance on promoting a positive experience of care following childbirth is increasingly emphasized. Yet published evidence of the methodological and psychometric quality of instruments to evaluate women's experience of comprehensive postnatal care is still lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and validate a unique scale (the Chinese version of the Postnatal Care Experience Scale, PCES) to measure women's overall experience of care during postnatal periods.

METHODS

The PCES instrument was developed and validated over three phases, including item development, scale development, and scale evaluation. The item pool of the PCES was generated through existing literature and in-depth semi-structured interviews, followed by assessment of content validity and rating of importance and feasibility of items through two-round Delphi surveys. Psychometric properties were examined in a convenience sample of 736 postpartum women. Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to assess the construct validity of the developed PCES. The relationship between the total PCES score and the global item construct was estimated using Pearson product-moment coefficient. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and Spearman Brown coefficients.

RESULTS

The content validity index of the Chinese version PCES was 0.867. Following item reduction analysis, this instrument consisted of 30 five-point Likert items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic was 0.964 and the chi-square value of the Bartlett spherical test was 11665.399 (P < .001). The scale explained 75.797% of the total variance and consisted of three subscales, including self-management, social support, and facility- and community-based care. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the total PCES score and the global item construct was 0.909. The CFA showed that the 3-factor model had suitable fitness for the data. Cronbach's alpha value and Spearman-Brown Split-half reliability for the total scale were 0.979 and 0.941, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed 30-item PCES is a psychometrically reliable and valid instrument that assesses women's overall experience of postnatal care. Future research should aim to use the PCES in various populations to obtain further evidence for its validity and reliability.

A content analysis of women's experiences of different models of maternity care: the Birth Experience Study (BESt)

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy, birth, and early parenthood are significant life experiences impacting women and their families. Growing evidence suggests models of maternity care impact clinical outcomes and birth experiences. The aim of this study was to explore the strengths and limitations of different maternity models of care accessed by women in Australia who had given birth in the past 5 years.

METHODS

The data analysed and presented in this paper is from the Australian Birth Experience Study (BESt), an online national survey of 133 questions that received 8,804 completed responses. There were 2,909 open-ended comments in response to the question on health care provider/s. The data was analysed using content analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In models of fragmented care, including standard public hospital care (SC), high-risk care (HRC), and GP Shared care (GPS), women reported feelings of frustration in being unknown and unheard by their health care providers (HCP) that included themes of exhaustion in having to repeat personal history and the difficulty in navigating conflicting medical advice. Women in continuity of care (CoC) models, including Midwifery Group Practice (MGP), Private Obstetric (POB), and Privately Practising Midwifery (PPM), reported positive experiences of healing past birth trauma and care extending for multiple births. Compared across models of care in private and public settings, comments in HRC contained the lowest percentage of strengths (11.94%) and the highest percentage of limitations (88.06%) while comments in PPM revealed the highest percentage of strengths (95.93%) and the lowest percentage of limitations (4.07%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women across models of care in public and private settings desire relational maternity care founded on their unique needs, wishes, and values. The strengths of continuity of care, specifically private midwifery, should be recognised and the limitations for women in high risk maternity care investigated and prioritised by policy makers and managers in health services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is part of a larger project that has been retrospectively registered with OSF Registries Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4KQXP .

Early labour experience questionnaire: Translation and cultural adaptation into German

PROBLEM

Evidence on early labour care suggests that women's needs are not adequately met.

BACKGROUND

Women's perceptions of early labour management impact on their overall birth experience. Valid measurement tools are needed for evaluation and improvement of early labour care.

AIM

Translation and cultural adaptation of the Early Labour Experience Questionnaire for use in a German context.

METHODS

Translation and adaptation followed internationally recognised guidelines. The process comprised for- and backward translation, an expert panel review using a three-round modified Delphi process and cognitive interviews with representatives of the target group using paraphrasing and retrospective probing. The interviews were conducted online, video-recorded and transcribed. Based on the results of the interviews the pilot version of the questionnaire was compiled.

FINDINGS

Nine experts, including a representative of the target group, participated in the Delphi process. Twelve cognitive interviews were conducted. Most of the translation and adaptation issues needing clarification related to differences in the organisation of maternity care, the term early labour and the translation of the single word expressions for women's affective state in early labour. Few problems emerged during cognitive interviews and related to conceptual understanding, reference points, instructions, and response categories. The pilot version of the German Early Labour Experience Questionnaire (G-ELEQ) comprises a total of 25 items.

CONCLUSION

With the G-ELEQ a tool for measuring women's early labour experience in the German context with good face and content validity is available. Psychometric testing is now needed to assess the instrument's validity and reliability.

Development, woman-centricity and psychometric properties of maternity patient-reported experience measures: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Valid and reliable maternity patient-reported experience measures are critical to understanding women's experiences of care. They can support clinical practice, health service and system performance measurement, and research. The aim of this review is to identify and critically appraise the risk of bias, woman-centricity (content validity), and psychometric properties of maternity patient-reported experience measures published in the scientific literature.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for relevant records between January 1, 2010 and July 10, 2021.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We searched for articles describing the instrument development of maternity patient-reported experience measures and measurement properties associated with instrument validity and reliability testing. Articles that described patient-reported experience measures developed outside of the maternity context and articles that did not contribute to the instruments' development, content validation, and/or psychometric evaluation were excluded.

METHODS

Included articles underwent risk of bias, content validity, and psychometric properties assessments in line with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) guidance. Patient-reported experience measure results were summarized according to language subgroups. An overall recommendation for use was determined for each patient-reported experience measure language subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies reported on the development and psychometric evaluation of 25 maternity patient-reported experience measures, grouped into 45 language subgroups. The quality of evidence underpinning the instruments' development was generally poor. Only 2 (4.4%) patient-reported experience measures reported sufficient content validity, and only 1 (2.2%) received a level "A" recommendation, required for real-world use.

CONCLUSION

Maternity patient-reported experience measures demonstrated poor-quality evidence for their measurement properties and insufficient detail about content validity. Future maternity patient-reported experience measure development needs to prioritize women's involvement in deciding what is relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible to measure. Improving the content validity of maternity patient-reported experience measures will improve overall validity and reliability and facilitate real-world practice improvements. Standardized patient-reported experience measure implementation also needs to be prioritized to support advancements in clinical practice for women.

What women want if they were to have another baby: the Australian Birth Experience Study (BESt) cross-sectional national survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore if Australian women would do anything differently if they were to have another baby.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The Birth Experience Study (BESt) online survey explored pregnancy, birth and postnatal experiences for women who had given birth during 2016-2021 in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

In 2021, 8804 women responded to the BESt survey and 6101 responses to the open text responses to the survey question 'Would you do anything different if you were to have another baby?' were analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6101 women provided comments in response to the open text question, resulting in 10 089 items of coding. Six categories were found: 'Next time I'll be ready' (3958, 39.2%) described how women reflected on their previous experience, feeling the need to better advocate for themselves in the future to receive the care or experience they wanted; 'I want a specific birth experience' (2872, 28.5%) and 'I want a specific model of care' (1796, 17.8%) highlighted the types of birth and health provider women would choose for their next pregnancy. 'I want better access' (294, 2.9%) identified financial and/or geographical constraints women experience trying to make choices for birth. Two categories included comments from women who said 'I don't want to change anything' (1027, 10.2%) and 'I don't want another pregnancy' (142, 1.4%). Most women birthed in hospital (82.9%) and had a vaginal birth (59.2%) and 26.7% had a caesarean.

CONCLUSION

Over 85% of comments left by women in Australia were related to making different decisions regarding their next birth choices. Most concerningly women often blamed themselves for not being more informed. Women realised the benefits of continuity of care with a midwife. Many women also desired a vaginal birth as well as better access to birthing at home.

Nursing model of midwifery and postural and psychological interventions: Impact on maternal and fetal outcomes and negative emotions of primiparas

BACKGROUND

Primiparas are usually at high risk of experiencing perinatal depression, which may cause prolonged labor, increased blood loss, and intensified pain, affecting maternal and fetal outcomes. Therefore, interventions are necessary to improve maternal and fetal outcomes and alleviate primiparas' negative emotions (NEs).

AIM

To discusses the impact of nursing responsibility in midwifery and postural and psychological interventions on maternal and fetal outcomes as well as primiparas' NEs.

METHODS

As participants, 115 primiparas admitted to Quanzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital between May 2020 and May 2022 were selected. Among them, 56 primiparas (control group, Con) were subjected to conventional midwifery and routine nursing. The remaining 59 (research group, Res) were subjected to the nursing model of midwifery and postural and psychological interventions. Both groups were comparatively analyzed from the perspectives of delivery mode (cesarean, natural, or forceps-assisted), maternal and fetal outcomes (uterine inertia, postpartum hemorrhage, placental abruption, neonatal pulmonary injury, and neonatal asphyxia), NEs (Hamilton Anxiety/Depression-rating Scale, HAMA/HAMD), labor duration, and nursing satisfaction.

RESULTS

The Res exhibited a markedly higher natural delivery rate and nursing satisfaction than the Con. Additionally, the Res indicated a lower incidence of adverse events (e.g., uterine inertia, postpartum hemorrhage, placental abruption, neonatal lung injury, and neonatal asphyxia) and shortened duration of various stages of labor. It also showed statistically lower post-interventional HAMA and HAMD scores than the Con and pre-interventional values.

CONCLUSION

The nursing model of midwifery and postural and psychological interventions increase the natural delivery rate and reduce the duration of each labor stage. These are also conducive to improving maternal and fetal outcomes and mitigating primiparas' NEs and thus deserve popularity in clinical practice.

Patient reported outcome measures in childbirth and postpartum maternal quality of life: a protocol for systematic review of measurement properties

Background: Patient centred healthcare is the corner stone to many healthcare strategies. Patient specific health needs should be at the fore of healthcare improvements and quality measurements.  Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) that support real world clinical effectiveness assessments are increasingly being used to highlight domains where there is the greatest scope for change. Objectives: This systematic review aims to identify and evaluate existing patient reported assessment measures/tool(s) that can be used in developing a PROM for postpartum women. We will assess and evaluate their measurement properties in a transparent and structured way in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines. Methods: Methodological guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs have been developed by the COSMIN initiative and will be followed for this systematic review. A systematic literature review will be performed using PubMed and EMBASE from inception to the present day. Two reviewers independently will judge eligibility, conduct data extraction and assess the methodological quality of each study as per COSMIN guidelines. Inclusion criteria: studies should concern PROM with an aim to evaluate measurement properties in the development or the evaluation of a PROM of interest. Included PROMS will focus upon postpartum women assessing morbidity and quality of care. All peer reviewed studies with an assessment tool designed for patient completion will be considered. Exclusion criteria; abstract, letters and non-peer reviewed publications. Studies will be graded on measurement properties and quality of evidence as laid out by COSMIN. All studies and characteristics eligible for inclusion will be summarised and a recommendation to the most suitable measurement tool(s) will be given. Discussion: We will provide a comprehensive description of all available patient reported assessment tools available for childbirth and postpartum quality of life and recommend based on COSMIN guidelines the most suitable instrument(s) available for use.