Childbirth experience assessment tools based on COSMIN guidelines: A systematic review

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the measurement characteristics and methodological quality of childbirth experience assessment tools, with a view to informing the selection of healthcare professionals who can provide high-quality assessment tools.

Method

A systematic search was performed on specific databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang, from inception to February 29, 2024. The researchers retrieved studies on the measurement attributes of the childbirth experience assessment tool, and traced back the references of the included studies to supplement relevant literature. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening and data extraction were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Two researchers individually used the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias Checklist to assess the methodological quality of the scale, applied the COSMIN criteria to evaluate the measurement properties of the scale, and used a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of evidence.

Result

A total of 15 studies were included to evaluate the psychometric properties of 11 childbirth experience assessment tools (including different language versions). Eight studies’ methodological quality of content validity was doubtful, and the remaining studies did not report content validity. None of the tools reported measurement error, cross-cultural validity, or responsiveness. In light of the questionable or unreported content validity of the tools, the evidence quality was deemed moderate or below. Consequently, the 11 assessment tools were recommended as grade B.

Conclusion

In contrast, the Questionnaire for Assessing the Childbirth Experience (QACE) is recommended for provisional use, given its relatively good methodological and measurement attributes and appropriate content for evaluation. However, further validation of other measurement properties is needed.