Applicability of the ReproQ Client Experiences Questionnaire for Quality Improvement in Maternity Care

Overview

Journal PeerJ

Specialties Biology
Environmental Health
General Medicine

Date 2016 Aug 2

PMID 27478690

Citations 12

Authors

Marisja Scheerhagen

Henk F van Stel

Dominique J C Tholhuijsen

Erwin Birnie

Arie Franx

Gouke J Bonsel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background. The ReproQuestionnaire (ReproQ) measures the client's experience with maternity care, following the WHO responsiveness model. In 2015, the ReproQ was appointed as national client experience questionnaire and will be added to the national list of indicators in maternity care. For using the ReproQ in quality improvement, the questionnaire should be able to identify best and worst practices. To achieve this, ReproQ should be reliable and able to identify relevant differences. Methods and Findings. We sent questionnaires to 17,867 women six weeks after labor (response 32%). Additionally, we invited 915 women for the retest (response 29%). Next we determined the test-retest reliability, the Minimally Important Difference (MID) and six known group comparisons, using two scorings methods: the percentage women with at least one negative experience and the mean score. The reliability for the percentage negative experience and mean score was both 'good' (Absolute agreement = 79%; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.78). The MID was 11% for the percentage negative and 0.15 for the mean score. Application of the MIDs revealed relevant differences in women's experience with regard to professional continuity, setting continuity and having travel time. Conclusions. The measurement characteristics of the ReproQ support its use in quality improvement cycle. Test-retest reliability was good, and the observed minimal important difference allows for discrimination of good and poor performers, also at the level of specific features of performance.

Citing Articles

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for quality improvement in pregnancy and childbirth care: a retrospective cohort study.

Klootwijk A, Bakx P, Franx A, Bijma H, Ernst-Smelt H, Ruiter M BMJ Open Qual. 2023; 12(1).

PMID: 36889814 PMC: 10008327. DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001922.

Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Perinatal Care to Guide Clinical Practice: Prospective Observational Study.

Depla A, Ruiter M, Laureij L, Ernst-Smelt H, Hazelzet J, Franx A J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(7):e37725.

PMID: 35787519 PMC: 9297146. DOI: 10.2196/37725.

Effects of a Personal Health Record in Maternity Care: A Stepped-Wedge Trial.

Groenen C, Kremer J, IntHout J, Meinders M, van Duijnhoven N, Vandenbussche F Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(19).

PMID: 34639642 PMC: 8508495. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph181910343.

Implementation of a standard outcome set in perinatal care: a qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators from all stakeholder perspectives.

Depla A, Crombag N, Franx A, Bekker M BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):113.

PMID: 33530989 PMC: 7852077. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06121-z.

Risk-guided maternity care to enhance maternal empowerment postpartum: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

Lagendijk J, Sijpkens M, Ernst-Smelt H, Verbiest S, Been J, Steegers E PLoS One. 2020; 15(11):e0242187.

PMID: 33216791 PMC: 7679010. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242187.

References

Gould J, Qin C, Marks A, Chavez G . Neonatal mortality in weekend vs weekday births. JAMA. 2003; 289(22):2958-62. DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.22.2958. View

Copay A, Subach B, Glassman S, Polly Jr D, Schuler T . Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007; 7(5):541-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008. View

Wyrwich K, Tierney W, Wolinsky F . Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2002; 11(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1023/a:1014485627744. View

Guyatt G, Osoba D, Wu A, Wyrwich K, Norman G . Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77(4):371-83. DOI: 10.4065/77.4.371. View

Fransen M, Harris V, Essink-Bot M . [Low health literacy in ethnic minority patients: understandable language is the beginning of good healthcare]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013; 157(14):A5581. View

Williams B . Patient satisfaction: a valid concept?. Soc Sci Med. 1994; 38(4):509-16. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90247-x. View

Haugum M, Danielsen K, Iversen H, Bjertnaes O . The use of data from national and other large-scale user experience surveys in local quality work: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014; 26(6):592-605. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu077. View

King M . A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011; 11(2):171-84. DOI: 10.1586/erp.11.9. View

Saultz J, Lochner J . Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review. Ann Fam Med. 2005; 3(2):159-66. PMC: 1466859. DOI: 10.1370/afm.285. View

10.

Poeran J, Borsboom G, de Graaf J, Birnie E, Steegers E, Bonsel G . Population attributable risks of patient, child and organizational risk factors for perinatal mortality in hospital births. Matern Child Health J. 2014; 19(4):764-75. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-014-1562-4. View

11.

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

12.

Wensing M, JUNG H, Mainz J, Olesen F, Grol R . A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med. 1998; 47(10):1573-88. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00222-6. View

13.

Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. View

14.

Weinick R, Quigley D, Mayer L, Sellers C . Use of CAHPS patient experience surveys to assess the impact of health care innovations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014; 40(9):418-27. DOI: 10.1016/s1553-7250(14)40054-0. View

15.

Vernon M, Revicki D, Awad A, Dirani R, Panish J, Canuso C . Psychometric evaluation of the Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to assess satisfaction with antipsychotic medication among schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Res. 2010; 118(1-3):271-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.01.021. View

16.

Ravelli A, Jager K, de Groot M, Erwich J, Rijninks-van Driel G, Tromp M . Travel time from home to hospital and adverse perinatal outcomes in women at term in the Netherlands. BJOG. 2010; 118(4):457-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02816.x. View

17.

Elvedi-Gasparovic V, Klepac-Pulanic T, Peter B . Maternal and fetal outcome in elective versus emergency caesarean section in a developing country. Coll Antropol. 2006; 30(1):113-8. View

18.

Brozek J, Guyatt G, Schunemann H . How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006; 4:69. PMC: 1599713. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-69. View

19.

Urato A, Craigo S, Chelmow D, OBrien W . The association between time of birth and fetal injury resulting in death. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(6):1521-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.03.084. View

20.

Rejas J, Ruiz M, Pardo A, Soto J . Minimally important difference of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11:142. PMC: 3241617. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-142. View