Volume 9, Issue 1 (2021)                   Health Educ Health Promot 2021, 9(1): 83-90 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Kazemi S, Kariman N, Pazandeh F, Kazemi S, Ozgoli G. Cross-Cultural Validity and Reliability Testing of the Quality Prenatal Care Questionnaire in Iran. Health Educ Health Promot. 2021; 9 (1) :83-90
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-47398-en.html
1- “Student Research Committee” and “Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery”, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Teh-ran, Iran
2- “Midwifery and Reproductive Health Research Center” and “Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery”, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Teh-ran, Iran
3- Department of Health Education & Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Health Education & Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran , g.ozgoli@gmail.com
Abstract:   (1366 Views)
Aims: The quality of antenatal care is recognized as critical to the effectiveness of care in optimizing maternal and child health outcomes. Utilization indices exist to measure the quantity of prenatal care, but currently, there is no accessed instrument to assess the quality of prenatal care in Iran. The purpose of this study was to examine the cross-cultural adaptation of quality of prenatal care using the 46-item Quality Prenatal Care Questionnaire in low-risk pregnant women.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional and psychometric study was performed from June 2018 to January 2019. Two hundred thirty women were referred to community-based practitioners, antenatal hospital clinics, public system, and Private care options. The Quality Prenatal Care Questionnaire was used, and all the data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 22 and LISREL 8.80. The Chi-square test, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, KMO index, and Bartlett's test of sphericity, as well as EFA and CFA, were applied for statistical analysis.
Findings: Cronbach's alpha for all items was 0.90, and ICC was 0.93. Explanatory factor analysis demonstrated the adequacy of the sampling (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin=0.80) and significant factorable sphericity (p<0.001). CFA also confirmed the values of fit indices (RMSEA=0.07, CFI>0.92, x 2/df=2.25).
Conclusion: The Quality Prenatal Care Questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring antenatal care quality. The Quality Prenatal Care Questionnaire will be useful in future research as an outcome measure to compare the quality of care across geographic regions, populations, and service delivery, models.
Full-Text [PDF 637 kb]   (341 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (160 Views)  
Article Type: Original Research | Subject: Family Health Education/Promotion
Received: 2020/11/5 | Accepted: 2020/12/24 | Published: 2021/05/25
* Corresponding Author Address: Department of Reproductive Health and Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Vali-Asr Avenue, Tehran, Iran.

References
1. Allen‐Duck A, Robinson JC, Stewart MW. Healthcare quality: A concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2017;52(4):377-86. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/nuf.12207] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Baker A. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Br Med J. 2001;323(7322):1192. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192]
3. Berwick D, Fox DM. "Evaluating the quality of medical care": Donabedian's classic article 50 years later. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):237. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12189] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Ayanian JZ, Markel H. Donabedian's lasting framework for health care quality. New Engl J Med. 2016;375(3):205-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1056/NEJMp1605101] [PMID]
5. Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(11):1611-25. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00057-5]
6. Renfrew MJ. Midwifery and quality care: Findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1129-45. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3]
7. Sword W, Heaman MI, Brooks S, Tough S, Janssen PA, Young D, et al. Women's and care providers' perspectives of quality prenatal care: A qualitative descriptive study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:29. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-12-29] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Wheatley RR, Kelley MA, Peacock N, Delgado J. Women's narratives on quality in prenatal care: A multicultural perspective. Qual Health Res. 2008;18(11):1586-98. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1049732308324986] [PMID]
9. Handler A, Rankin K, Rosenberg D, Sinha K. Extent of documented adherence to recommended prenatal care content: Provider site differences and effect on outcomes among low-income women. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16(2):393-405. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10995-011-0763-3] [PMID]
10. Omar MA, Schiffman RF, Bingham CR. Development and testing of the patient expectations and satisfaction with prenatal care instrument. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(3):218-29. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/nur.1024] [PMID]
11. Klerman LV, Ramey SL, Goldenberg RL, Marbury S, Hou J, Cliver SP. A randomized trial of augmented prenatal care for multiple-risk, medicaid-eligible African American women. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(1):105-11. [Link] [DOI:10.2105/AJPH.91.1.105] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Wilkinson SA, McIntyre HD. Evaluation of the'healthy start to pregnancy' early antenatal health promotion workshop: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12(1):131. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-12-131] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Rowe S, Karkhaneh Z, MacDonald I, Chambers T, Amjad S, Osornio-Vargas A, et al. Systematic review of the measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:171. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12884-020-2822-5] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Wong ST, Korenbrot CC, Stewart AL. Consumer assessment of the quality of interpersonal processes of prenatal care among ethnically diverse low-income women: Development of a new measure. Women's Health Issues. 2004;14(4):118-29. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.whi.2004.04.003] [PMID]
15. Heaman MI, Sword WA, Akhtar-Danesh N, Bradford A, Tough S, Janssen PA, et al. quality of prenatal care questionnaire: Instrument development and testing. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:188. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-14-188] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures. New York: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2002. [Link]
17. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. New York: SAGE Publications; 2016. [Link]
18. Fearon E, Chabata ST, Thompson JA, Cowan FM, Hargreaves JR. Sample size calculations for population size estimation studies using multiplier methods with respondent-driven sampling surveys. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017;3(3):e59. [Link] [DOI:10.2196/publichealth.7909] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Plichta SB, Kelvin EA. Munro's statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. [Link]
20. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. 4th Edition. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015. [Link]
21. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with lisrel, prelis, and simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Unknown city: Psychology Press; 2013. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9780203774762]
22. de Souza AC, Costa Alexandre NM, de Brito Guirardello E. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2017;26(3):649-59. [Link] [DOI:10.5123/S1679-49742017000300022] [PMID]
23. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;5(2):155-63. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Sword W, Heaman M, Biro MA, Homer C, Yelland J, Akhtar-Danesh N, et al. quality of prenatal care questionnaire: Psychometric testing in an Australia population. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:214. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12884-015-0644-7] [PMID] [PMCID]
25. Barry OM, Bergh AM, Makin JD, Etsane E, Kershaw TS, Forsyth BWC. Development of a measure of the patient-provider relationship in antenatal care and its importance in PMTCT. AIDS Care. 2012;24(6):680-6. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/09540121.2011.630369] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Beeckman K, Louckx F, Masuy-Stroobant G, Downe S, Putman K. The development and application of a new tool to assess the adequacy of the content and timing of antenatal care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:213. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-11-213] [PMID] [PMCID]
27. Mendoza MD, Smith SG, Eder MM, Hickner J. The seventh element of quality: The doctor-patient relationship. Fam Med. 2011;43(2):83-9. [Link]
28. Kennedy HP, Yoshida S, Costello A, Declercq E, Dias MA, Duff E, et al. Asking different questions: Research priorities to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(11):e777-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30183-8]
29. McFadden A, MacDorman M. Introduction to Birth's special issue: Quality of care II. Birth. 2019;46(3):389-90. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/birt.12447] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.