Abstract
Objective
Design & Participants
Measurements
Findings
Conclusions
Zusammenfassung
Zielsetzung
Methodik
Ergebnisse
Diskussion
Keywords
Schlüsselwörter
Abbreviations:
AVE (Average Variance Extracted), CARE-8-M (Scale for measuring the Midwife's Empathy), CARE-PM-M (Structural component measuring Participatory Communication), CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), CI (Confidence Interval), df (Degrees of Freedom), FR (Factor Reliability), IR (Indicator Reliability), PC-M (Scale for measuring Professional Competence), rit (Corrected item-total correlation), RMSEA (Root Mean Square of Approximation), SDM-Q-9-M (Scale for measuring Shared Decision-Making), SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual), TEAM-M (Scale for measuring Internal Team Participation), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), WHO (World Health Organization)Background
WHO Regional Office for Europe, European strategic directions for strengthening nursing and midwifery towards Health 2020 goals. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/274306/European-strategic-directions-strengthening-nursing-midwifery-Health2020_en-REV1.pdf?ua = 1, 2015.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
The concept of woman-centred midwifery care
- Fontein-Kuipers Y.
- Groot de R.
- van Staa A.
- Fontein-Kuipers Y.
- Groot de R.
- van Staa A.
- Fontein-Kuipers Y.
- Groot de R.
- van Staa A.
- Fontein-Kuipers Y.
- Groot de R.
- van Staa A.
- Fontein-Kuipers Y.
- Groot de R.
- van Staa A.

Woman's subjective perspective on quality of midwifery care
- 1.woman's level: alignment of care with women's experiences and needs in terms of woman-centred care and strengthening patient safety.
- 2.provider level: individual performance feedback from midwives to evaluate and optimize their own care practices.
- 3.system level: stronger inclusion of PREMs in midwifery care as supplementary indicators in the context of quality assurance of comprehensive care for women.
Reference to the concept of patient centred care
- •woman (e.g. consideration of woman's preferences, values and behaviour, emotional support, involvement of family members)
- •woman-midwife relationship (e.g. trusting, empathic communication, information, shared decision-making, perceived expertise of the midwife)
- •coherence of care (e.g. continuity and coordinated care)
- Kaye D.K.
- Kakaire O.
- Nakimuli A.
- et al.
- Fontein-Kuipers Y.
- Groot de R.
- van Staa A.
Aim of the present study
M. Körner, Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Trainingsprogramms zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung in der medizinischen Rehabilitation (PEFIT): Abschlussbericht, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg. http://www.forschung-patientenorientierung.de/files/abschlussbericht_endfassung_juni_2012_pefit.pdf, 2012.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
Methods
Participants
Assessment instruments
9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)
Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE)
- Neumann M.
- Wirtz M.
- Bollschweiler E.
- et al.
Team Scale (TEAM)
M. Körner, Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Trainingsprogramms zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung in der medizinischen Rehabilitation (PEFIT): Abschlussbericht, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg. http://www.forschung-patientenorientierung.de/files/abschlussbericht_endfassung_juni_2012_pefit.pdf, 2012.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
Facet Professional Competence (PC) of Qualiskope-A Questionnaire
- Hildingsson I.
- Andersson E.
- Christensson K.
M. Körner, Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Trainingsprogramms zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung in der medizinischen Rehabilitation (PEFIT): Abschlussbericht, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg. http://www.forschung-patientenorientierung.de/files/abschlussbericht_endfassung_juni_2012_pefit.pdf, 2012.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
- Neumann M.
- Wirtz M.
- Bollschweiler E.
- et al.
Statistical Analysis
- Wirtz M.
Results
Demographics
- Wirtz M.
M | S.D. | |
---|---|---|
Age | 32.8 | 3.6 |
Frequencies (n) | (%) | |
Age | ||
< 30 years | 39 | 19.4 |
30 – 35 years | 111 | 55.2 |
>35 years | 51 | 25.4 |
Nationality | ||
German | 194 | 96.5 |
Another nationality | 7 | 3.5 |
Education | ||
Secondary (general) & specialized school | 99 | 49.2 |
Grammar or high school | 99 | 49.2 |
Other | 3 | 1.6 |
Completed vocational training, higher education | ||
Apprenticeship | 56 | 27.9 |
Vocational school | 31 | 15.4 |
Technical school | 31 | 15.4 |
Engineering school | 2 | 1.0 |
University, college | 73 | 36.3 |
Other | 8 | 4.0 |
Marital status | ||
Married, lives with spouse | 156 | 77.6 |
Separated/divorced/widowed/single mother | 45 | 22.4 |
Insurance status | ||
Statutory insurance | 172 | 85.6 |
Private insurance | 29 | 14.4 |
Net-household income (monthly) | ||
500 to less than 2,000 €/month | 27 | 13.4 |
2,000 to less than 5, 000 €/month | 152 | 75.7 |
≥ 5,000 €/month | 22 | 10.9 |
Birth experience | ||
Primipara | 116 | 57.7 |
Two children born | 65 | 32.3 |
Three or more children born | 20 | 10.0 |
Premature birth | ||
Yes | 12 | 6.0 |
No | 189 | 94.0 |
High-risk pregnancy | ||
Yes | 44 | 21.9 |
No | 154 | 76.6 |
Mode of childbirth | ||
Vaginal spontaneous birth | 148 | 73.6 |
Intended caesarean birth | 17 | 8.5 |
Unscheduled caesarean section/ emergency caesarean-section | 36 | 17.9 |
CFA of single assessment scales
SDM-Q-9-M Scale
χ2 | df | χ2/df | p | CFI | TLI | RMSEA [90%-CI] | SRMR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
acceptable fit threshold good fit threshold | < 3 < 2 | ≥.05 | ≥ .95 ≥. 97 | ≥ .95 ≥ .97 | ≤ .08 ≤ .05 | ≤ .08 | ||
SDM-Q-9-M(idwifery) | ||||||||
Original model | 216.44 | 27 | 8.02 | < .001 | .91 | .89 | .187 [.17; .21] | .045 |
Modified model | 74.80 | 24 | 3.12 | < .001 | .98 | .97 | .103 [.08; .13] | .025 |
CARE-M | ||||||||
Original model | 276.01 | 35 | 7.89 | < .001 | .88 | .84 | .186 [.17; .21] | .067 |
Modified model | 117.99 | 33 | 3.58 | < .001 | .96 | .94 | .113 [.09; .14] | .032 |
TEAM-M | ||||||||
Original model | 16.08 | 5 | 3.22 | .007 | .99 | .98 | .105 [.05; .17] | .016 |
PC-M | ||||||||
Original model | 196.13 | 20 | 9.81 | < .001 | .82 | .75 | .210 [.18; .24] | .071 |
Modified model | 38.59 | 20 | 1.93 | .008 | .98 | .97 | .068 [.04; .10] | .030 |
Multidimensional Model | 657.06 | 363 | 1.81 | < .001 | .96 | .95 | .064 [.06; .07] | .049 |
SDM-Q-9-M (0 = completely disagree all, 5 = completely agree) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Item | M | S.D. | IR | ||
SDM-M-1 – has expressly informed that a decision must be taken | 3.49 | 1.60 | .73 | .50 | FR: .96 |
SDM-M-2 – desired participation in decision making | 3.59 | 1.45 | .81 | .63 | AVE: .74 |
SDM-M-3 – information different options | 4.03 | 1.40 | .89 | .82 | α .96 |
SDM-M-4 – explanation assets & drawbacks of the options | 3.87 | 1.46 | .92 | .89 | |
SDM-M-5 – helped to understand all information | 4.12 | 1.34 | .85 | .79 | |
SDM-M-6 – asked which option I preferred | 3.91 | 1.50 | .91 | .89 | |
SDM-M-7 – joint consideration of options | 3.66 | 1.58 | .88 | .80 | |
SDM-M-8 – joint selection of the option | 3.38 | 1.66 | .80 | .65 | |
SDM-M-9 – agreement for further care | 3.77 | 1.60 | .85 | .72 | |
CARE-8-M (1 = fully applies, 5 = does not apply at all) | |||||
Item | M | S.D. | IR | ||
CARE-M-1 – making you feel at ease | 1.26 | 0.68 | .81 | .71 | FR: .96 |
CARE-M-2 – letting you tell your “story“ | 1.27 | 0.65 | .82 | .71 | AVE: .73 |
CARE-M-3 – really listening | 1.35 | 0.65 | .83 | .71 | α: .96 |
CARE-M-4 – being interested in you as whole person | 1.33 | 0.68 | .87 | .80 | |
CARE-M-5 – fully understanding your concerns | 1.43 | 0.76 | .80 | .67 | |
CARE-M-6 – showing care and compassion | 1.34 | 0.72 | .92 | .88 | |
CARE-M-7 – being positive | 1.32 | 0.71 | .83 | .73 | |
CARE-M-8 – explaining things clearly | 1.41 | 0.80 | .80 | .68 | |
CARE-PM-M (1 = fully applies, 5 = does not apply at all) | |||||
Item | M | S.D. | IR | ||
CARE-M-9 – helpful birth preparation | 1.61 | 1.02 | .82 | .86 | FR: .90 |
CARE-M-10 – making a plan of action with you | 1.86 | 1.13 | .82 | .78 | AVE: .82 α: .90 |
TEAM-M (1 = does not apply at all, 6 = fully applies) | |||||
Item | M | S.D. | IR | ||
TEAM-M-1 – work hand in hand | 2.87 | 1.88 | .90 | .73 | FR: .96 |
TEAM-M-2 – good agreements among themselves | 2.95 | 1.89 | .95 | .93 | AVE: .85 |
TEAM-M-3 – coordinated information | 3.31 | 1.84 | .87 | .76 | α: .97 |
TEAM-M-4 – good communication between each other | 2.86 | 1.89 | .94 | .95 | |
TEAM-M-5 – deferential interaction | 3.55 | 2.00 | .85 | .86 | |
PC-M (1 = does not apply at all, 6 = fully applies) | |||||
Item | M | S.D. | IR | ||
PC-M-1 – involves important persons in care | 5.38 | 1.11 | .61 | .47 | FR: .87 |
PC-M-2 – has taken thorough care of my health | 5.28 | 1.02 | .77 | .63 | AVE: .57 |
PC-M-3 – cooperates well with other professions | 4.48 | 1.49 | .66 | .55 | α: .86 |
PC-M-4 – pays attention to whether other professionals need to be involved | 4.83 | 1.37 | |||
PC-M-5 – shés a specialist | 5.56 | 0.79 | .74 | .66 | |
PC-M-6 – is at the current state of knowledge | 5.58 | 0.81 | |||
PC-M-7 – physical birth preparation | 5.31 | 1.10 | .71 | .61 | |
PC-M-8 – psychological birth preparation | 5.27 | 1.15 |
CARE-M Scale
TEAM-M Scale
PC-M Scale
Multi-dimensional CFA of the assessment scales
- Wirtz M.
Scales | SDM-Q-9-M | CARE-8-M | CARE-PM-M | TEAM-M | PC-M α | M | S.D. | Skewness | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SDM-Q-9-M | .86 | .51 | .54 | .41 | .62 | .96 | 3.75 | 1.33 | -1.20 |
CARE-8-M | .54 | .85 | .63 | .36 | .69 | .96 | 1.34 | 0.62 | 2.57 |
CARE-PM-M | .59 | .67 | .75 | .42 | .72 | .90 | 1.74 | 1.02 | 1.72 |
TEAM-M | .37 | .34 | .38 | .92 | .50 | .97 | 3.11 | 1.78 | 0.30 |
PC-M | .68 | .75 | .80 | .44 | .91 | .86 | 5.24 | 0.86 | -1.73 |
Associations of the scales with intensity of care, service utilization, education, and birth experience.
Pearson correlation | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Appointments | M | S.D. | Median | SDM-Q-9-M | CARE-8-M | CARE-PM-M | TEAM-M | PC-M |
Number of appointments with midwife during pregnancy | 3.27 | 3.23 | 2.00 | .229 | .136 | .038 | .109 | .208 |
Duration of appointments with the midwife during pregnancy (minutes) | 32.46 | 21.38 | 30.00 | .177 | .111 | .126 | .050 | .186 |
First contact with midwife (week of pregnancy) | 19.79 | 8.36 | 18.00 | .163 | .035 | .103 | .025 | .010 |
N | SDM-Q-9-M | CARE-8-M | CARE-PM-M | TEAM-M | PC-M | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Education | Grammar or high school | 102 | 3.74 (1.39) | 1.35 (0.63) | 1.69 (1.03) | 3.06 (1.85) | 5.25 (0.81) |
Other | 99 | 3.76 (1.27) | 1.32 (0.61) | 1.78 (1.02) | 3.15 (1.71) | 5.17 (0.91) | |
Cohen’s d | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.09 | ||
Birth Experience | First birth | 116 | 3.672 (1.13) | 1.39 (0.64) | 1.83 (1.03) | 2.89 (1.72) | 5.14 (0.85) |
At least second birth | 85 | 3.86 (1.36) | 1.27 (0.59) | 1.62 (1.01) | 3.41 (1.81) | 5.31 (0.87) | |
Cohen’s d | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.20 | ||
Services | |||||||
Preventive medical check-ups | yes | 39 | 4.33 (0.82) | 1.16 (0.34) | 1.44 (0.70) | 3.86 (1.93) | 5.58 (0.59) |
no | 162 | 3.61 (1.39) | 1.38 (0.66) | 1.81 (1.07) | 2.93 (1.69) | 5.12 (0.89) | |
Cohen’s d | 0.55 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.54 | 0.55 | ||
Counselling | yes | 101 | 4.01 (1.02) | 1.30 (0.49) | 1.71 (0.97) | 3.30 (1.80) | 5.29 (0.76) |
No | 100 | 3.50 (1.55) | 1.38 (0.72) | 1.77 (1.08) | 2.92 (1.72) | 5.13 (0.95) | |
Cohen’s d | 0.39 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.19 | ||
Support (e. g. pregnancy complaints) | yes | 140 | 4.08 (1.06) | 1.26 (0.49) | 1.61 (0.85) | 3.34 (1.77) | 4.35 (0.74) |
no | 61 | 3.01 (1.58) | 1.11 (0.82) | 2.06 (1.30) | 2.56 (1.68) | 4.90 (1.03) | |
Cohen’s d | 0.86 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.66 | ||
birth preparation | yes | 155 | 3.76 (1.33) | 1.32 (0.60) | 1.63 (0.89) | 3.11 (1.71) | 5.25 (0.79) |
no | 46 | 3.72 (1.37) | 1.38 (0.69) | 2.09 (1.33) | 3.10 (2.01) | 5.08 (1.07) | |
Cohen’s d | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.46 | 0.01 | 0.20 |
Discussion
- Neumann M.
- Wirtz M.
- Bollschweiler E.
- et al.
- Eickhorst A.
- Schreier A.
- Brand C.
- et al.
- Eickhorst A.
- Schreier A.
- Brand C.
- et al.
Limitations of the study
- Neumann M.
- Wirtz M.
- Bollschweiler E.
- et al.
Conclusion
Availability of data and materials
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Funding
Acknowledgement
Conflict of interest
CRediT author statement
Appendix A. Supplementary data
References
International Confederation of Midwives, Definition of Midwifery. https://www.internationalmidwives.org/assets/files/definitions-files/2018/06/eng-definition_midwifery.pdf, 2017.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
WHO Regional Office for Europe, European strategic directions for strengthening nursing and midwifery towards Health 2020 goals. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/274306/European-strategic-directions-strengthening-nursing-midwifery-Health2020_en-REV1.pdf?ua = 1, 2015.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
- Woman-centered care 2.0: Bringing the concept into focus.Eur J Midwifery 2. 2018; https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/91492
WHO, Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/249155/9789241511216-eng.pdf;jsessionid = B4A2CB77555D98944BE7D7A084FC6CB2?sequence = 1, 2016.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
- The Truth is in the Eye of the Beholder? Quality in Rehabilitation from the Patientś Perspective.Rehabilitation. 2010; 49 (https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1268005): 376-382
- Women's expectations of a midwife.Die Hebamme. 2018; 31: 30-36
- Woman-centred care during pregnancy and birth in Ireland: thematic analysis of women's and clinicians’ experiences.BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2017; 17 (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1521-3): 322
- Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care.The Lancet. 2014; 384 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3): 1129-1145
- The role of the midwife in Australia: views of women and midwives.Midwifery. 2009; 25: 673-681https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2007.11.003
- Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review.Syst Rev. 2015; 4 (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0): 97
- Development of the concept of patient-centredness - A systematic review.Patient Educ Couns. 2019; 102: 1228-1236https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.02.023
- Analyzing the effects of shared decision-making, empathy and team interaction on patient satisfaction and treatment acceptance in medical rehabilitation using a structural equation modeling approach.Patient Educ Couns. 2013; 91: 167-175https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.12.007
- Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care.N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 780-781https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1109283
- Male involvement during pregnancy and childbirth: men's perceptions, practices and experiences during the care for women who developed childbirth complications in Mulago Hospital, Uganda.BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2014; 14 (https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-54): 54
Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Health Care (2019) Description of the quality indicators and key figures according to QSKH-RL: Obstetrics. 2018, Berlin.
- Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review.BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2013; 13 (https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-108): 108
- The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample.Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 80: 94-99https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034
- The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure.Fam Pract. 2004; 21: 699-705https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmh621
M. Körner, Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Trainingsprogramms zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung in der medizinischen Rehabilitation (PEFIT): Abschlussbericht, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg. http://www.forschung-patientenorientierung.de/files/abschlussbericht_endfassung_juni_2012_pefit.pdf, 2012.(accessed 09 Jun 2021).
- A Validated Questionnaire for Measuring Patient Satisfaction in General and Specialist Ambulatory Medical Care: the Qualiskope-A.Gesundheitswesen. 2004; 66 (https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-813750): 723-731
- Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the German Version of the ”Consultation and Relational Empathy“ (CARE) Measure at the Example of Inpatient Cancer Patients (Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the ”Consultation and Relational Empathy“ (CARE) measure at the example of cancer patients).Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2008; 58 (https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-970791): 5-15
- Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales.Methodology. 2008; 4 (https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73): 73-79
- Swedish women's expectations about antenatal care and change over time - a comparative study of two cohorts of women.Sexual & reproductive healthcare: official journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives. 2014; 5: 51-57https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2014.01.001
- On the Problem of Missing Data: How to Identify and Reduce the Impact of Missing Data on Findings of Data Analysis (On the problem of missing data: How to identify and reduce the impact of missing data on findings of data analysis).Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2004; 43 (https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-814839): 109-115
- Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4 th. Methodology in the social sciences.Guilford Press, New York, NY2015
- Evaluation of the ”Consultation and Relational Empathy" (CARE) measure by means of Rasch-analysis at the example of cancer patients.Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 82: 298-306https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.009
- The Performance of RMSEA in Models With Small Degrees of Freedom.Sociological Methods & Research. 2015; 44: 486-507https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
- Inanspruchnahme von Angeboten der Frühen Hilfen und darüber hinaus durch psychosozial belastete Eltern (Knowledge and use of different support programs in the context of early prevention in relation to family-related psychosocial burden).Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2016; 59 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-016-2422-8): 1271-1280
- (eds)Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.Second edition. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ2020
- Fathers’ roles matter too: An ethnographic study examining fathers’ roles and the influences on their roles during labour and birth.Midwifery. 2020; 92: 102857https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2020.102857
Article info
Publication history
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy