8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Design and Validation of the PercOV-S Questionnaire for Measuring Perceived Obstetric Violence in Nursing, Midwifery and Medical Students

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Obstetric violence could be defined as the dehumanized treatment or abuse of health professionals towards the body or reproductive process of women. Some practices associated with obstetric violence have been routinely standardized and do not include the woman in decision making. This type of violence has consequences for the health of both the mother and the baby and that of the professionals who practice or observed it. Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 33 items that measured perception through a Likert scale was developed. Some sociodemographic variables were collected. The instrument was applied to a sample of nursing, medicine and midwifery students to determine its psychometric properties. Results: The final sample consisted of 153 students. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin ( p = 0.918) and Barlett tests ( p ≤ 0.001) allowed for factor analysis, which explained 54.47% of the variance in two factors called protocolized-visible obstetric violence and non-protocolized-invisible obstetric violence. Conclusions: The PercOV-S (Perception of Obstetric Violence in Students) instrument was validated. The distribution and content of the two factors are closely related to obstetric violence against women. The existence of statistically significant relationships between the sociodemographic variables collected and the global measurements, domains and items of the PercOV-S scale highlight the normalization of obstetric violence as a central factor for future studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.

          Nurse researchers typically provide evidence of content validity for instruments by computing a content validity index (CVI), based on experts' ratings of item relevance. We compared the CVI to alternative indexes and concluded that the widely-used CVI has advantages with regard to ease of computation, understandability, focus on agreement of relevance rather than agreement per se, focus on consensus rather than consistency, and provision of both item and scale information. One weakness is its failure to adjust for chance agreement. We solved this by translating item-level CVIs (I-CVIs) into values of a modified kappa statistic. Our translation suggests that items with an I-CVI of .78 or higher for three or more experts could be considered evidence of good content validity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures

            Purpose New patient reported outcome (PRO) measures are regularly developed to assess various aspects of the patients’ perspective on their disease and treatment. For these instruments to be useful in clinical research, they must undergo a proper psychometric validation, including demonstration of cross-sectional and longitudinal measurement properties. This quantitative evaluation requires a study to be conducted on an appropriate sample size. The aim of this research was to list and describe practices in PRO and proxy PRO primary psychometric validation studies, focusing primarily on the practices used to determine sample size. Methods A literature review of articles published in PubMed between January 2009 and September 2011 was conducted. Three selection criteria were applied including a search strategy, an article selection strategy, and data extraction. Agreements between authors were assessed, and practices of validation were described. Results Data were extracted from 114 relevant articles. Within these, sample size determination was low (9.6%, 11/114), and were reported as either an arbitrary minimum sample size (n = 2), a subject to item ratio (n = 4), or the method was not explicitly stated (n = 5). Very few articles (4%, 5/114) compared a posteriori their sample size to a subject to item ratio. Content validity, construct validity, criterion validity and internal consistency were the most frequently measurement properties assessed in the validation studies. Approximately 92% of the articles reported a subject to item ratio greater than or equal to 2, whereas 25% had a ratio greater than or equal to 20. About 90% of articles had a sample size greater than or equal to 100, whereas 7% had a sample size greater than or equal to 1000. Conclusions The sample size determination for psychometric validation studies is rarely ever justified a priori. This emphasizes the lack of clear scientifically sound recommendations on this topic. Existing methods to determine the sample size needed to assess the various measurement properties of interest should be made more easily available. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Giving Voice to Mothers study: inequity and mistreatment during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States

              Background Recently WHO researchers described seven dimensions of mistreatment in maternity care that have adverse impacts on quality and safety. Applying the WHO framework for quality care, service users partnered with NGOs, clinicians, and researchers, to design and conduct the Giving Voice to Mothers (GVtM)–US study. Methods Our multi-stakeholder team distributed an online cross-sectional survey to capture lived experiences of maternity care in diverse populations. Patient-designed items included indicators of verbal and physical abuse, autonomy, discrimination, failure to meet professional standards of care, poor rapport with providers, and poor conditions in the health system. We quantified the prevalence of mistreatment by race, socio-demographics, mode of birth, place of birth, and context of care, and describe the intersectional relationships between these variables. Results Of eligible participants (n = 2700), 2138 completed all sections of the survey. One in six women (17.3%) reported experiencing one or more types of mistreatment such as: loss of autonomy; being shouted at, scolded, or threatened; and being ignored, refused, or receiving no response to requests for help. Context of care (e.g. mode of birth; transfer; difference of opinion) correlated with increased reports of mistreatment. Experiences of mistreatment differed significantly by place of birth: 5.1% of women who gave birth at home versus 28.1% of women who gave birth at the hospital. Factors associated with a lower likelihood of mistreatment included having a vaginal birth, a community birth, a midwife, and being white, multiparous, and older than 30 years. Rates of mistreatment for women of colour were consistently higher even when examining interactions between race and other maternal characteristics. For example, 27.2% of women of colour with low SES reported any mistreatment versus 18.7% of white women with low SES. Regardless of maternal race, having a partner who was Black also increased reported mistreatment. Conclusion This is the first study to use indicators developed by service users to describe mistreatment in childbirth in the US. Our findings suggest that mistreatment is experienced more frequently by women of colour, when birth occurs in hospitals, and among those with social, economic or health challenges. Mistreatment is exacerbated by unexpected obstetric interventions, and by patient-provider disagreements. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-019-0729-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                30 October 2020
                November 2020
                : 17
                : 21
                : 8022
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universitat Jaume I, Avda. Sos I Baynat s/n, 12071 Castellón, Spain; cerveraa@ 123456uji.es (A.C.-G.); pejo@ 123456uji.es (L.A.-P.); vchorda@ 123456uji.es (V.M.G.-C.)
                [2 ]Midwives’ Teaching Unit of the Comunitat Valenciana, 46017 Valencia, Spain; alemany_marjos@ 123456gva.es
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: dmena@ 123456uji.es
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1596-3064
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8187-680X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2944-9878
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7426-6686
                Article
                ijerph-17-08022
                10.3390/ijerph17218022
                7662790
                33143368
                f43fe721-4a47-4e69-b1d6-cc9daabca973
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 04 September 2020
                : 27 October 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                obstetric violence,gender violence,childbirth,birth,health sciences students
                Public health
                obstetric violence, gender violence, childbirth, birth, health sciences students

                Comments

                Comment on this article