Adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Quality from Patient Perspective-Intrapartal (QPP-I) questionnaire to assess childbirth care.

IF 1.5 Q3 NURSING
European Journal of Midwifery Pub Date : 2025-05-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.18332/ejm/201472
Julia Nawrot, Dorota Matuszyk, Aneta Suder, Agnieszka Bień, Violetta Skrzypulec-Plinta, Agnieszka Gniadek
{"title":"Adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Quality from Patient Perspective-Intrapartal (QPP-I) questionnaire to assess childbirth care.","authors":"Julia Nawrot, Dorota Matuszyk, Aneta Suder, Agnieszka Bień, Violetta Skrzypulec-Plinta, Agnieszka Gniadek","doi":"10.18332/ejm/201472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As midwifery shifts to a holistic, women-centered model, assessing care quality from the patient's perspective is crucial. The lack of standardized tools in Poland forces reliance on invalidated <i>ad hoc</i> measures. This study bridges the gap by translating and validating the QPP-I questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Polish QPP-I was adapted and validated through a cross-cultural study. A pilot (25 women) and a multicenter study (153 women) were conducted 2-3 days postpartum, with a test-retest after 2-4 weeks. Convenience sampling was used, with data collected via online and paper questionnaires. The pilot ran in late 2019, and the main study (February 2020-March 2021) spanned five maternity wards. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion relevance were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaire was well-received by the target group, requiring minimal cultural adaptation. QPP-I PL demonstrated high internal consistency (α=0.935 for the 1st testing, α=0.95 for the test-retest) and good validity (mean Kendall W=0.65). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Most items showed good reliability (α >0.70). The Perceived Reality (PR) subscale had high reliability (α=0.90), while the Subjective Importance (SI) subscale reached α=0.93, confirming the appropriateness of all items. However, indicators related to participation in decision-making and midwifery attendance showed poor internal consistency. The mean alpha coefficient in the test-retest further supported good reliability (α=0.65).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Polish version of the QPP-I questionnaire demonstrates good validity and reliability for assessing the quality of perinatal care from the patient's perspective. The questionnaire reflects the Polish perinatal care context while maintaining the original tool's integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":32920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Midwifery","volume":"9 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067482/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/201472","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: As midwifery shifts to a holistic, women-centered model, assessing care quality from the patient's perspective is crucial. The lack of standardized tools in Poland forces reliance on invalidated ad hoc measures. This study bridges the gap by translating and validating the QPP-I questionnaire.

Methods: The Polish QPP-I was adapted and validated through a cross-cultural study. A pilot (25 women) and a multicenter study (153 women) were conducted 2-3 days postpartum, with a test-retest after 2-4 weeks. Convenience sampling was used, with data collected via online and paper questionnaires. The pilot ran in late 2019, and the main study (February 2020-March 2021) spanned five maternity wards. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion relevance were analyzed.

Results: The questionnaire was well-received by the target group, requiring minimal cultural adaptation. QPP-I PL demonstrated high internal consistency (α=0.935 for the 1st testing, α=0.95 for the test-retest) and good validity (mean Kendall W=0.65). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Most items showed good reliability (α >0.70). The Perceived Reality (PR) subscale had high reliability (α=0.90), while the Subjective Importance (SI) subscale reached α=0.93, confirming the appropriateness of all items. However, indicators related to participation in decision-making and midwifery attendance showed poor internal consistency. The mean alpha coefficient in the test-retest further supported good reliability (α=0.65).

Conclusions: The Polish version of the QPP-I questionnaire demonstrates good validity and reliability for assessing the quality of perinatal care from the patient's perspective. The questionnaire reflects the Polish perinatal care context while maintaining the original tool's integrity.

波兰版“患者视角质量-产时(QPP-I)”问卷用于评估分娩护理的调整与验证。
导言:随着助产转变为一个整体的,以妇女为中心的模式,从病人的角度评估护理质量是至关重要的。在波兰,缺乏标准化的工具迫使人们依赖于无效的临时措施。本研究通过翻译和验证QPP-I问卷弥补了这一差距。方法:通过跨文化研究对波兰qpp - 1进行改编和验证。一项试点研究(25名妇女)和一项多中心研究(153名妇女)在产后2-3天进行,在2-4周后再次进行测试。采用方便抽样,通过在线问卷和纸质问卷收集数据。该试点于2019年底开始,主要研究(2020年2月至2021年3月)涵盖了5个产科病房。分析了内部一致性、重测信度和标准相关性。结果:问卷在目标群体中很受欢迎,只需要很少的文化适应。QPP-I PL具有较高的内部一致性(第一次测试α=0.935,第二次测试α=0.95)和良好的效度(平均肯德尔W=0.65)。采用Cronbach’s alpha评估信度。多数项目信度较好(α >0.70)。感知现实(PR)分量表具有较高的信度(α=0.90),主观重要性(SI)分量表具有较高的信度(α= 0.93),证实了所有条目的适当性。然而,与参与决策和助产出勤率相关的指标显示出较差的内部一致性。重测的平均α系数进一步支持良好的信度(α=0.65)。结论:波兰语版QPP-I问卷从患者角度评价围产期护理质量具有良好的效度和信度。问卷反映了波兰围产期护理背景,同时保持了原始工具的完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Midwifery
European Journal of Midwifery Nursing-Maternity and Midwifery
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.80%
发文量
65
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信