整体分娩经验评分:一项定量测量的定性研究。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Frida Viirman, Reidun Jidrot, Linn Lundström, Lisa Ljungman
{"title":"整体分娩经验评分:一项定量测量的定性研究。","authors":"Frida Viirman, Reidun Jidrot, Linn Lundström, Lisa Ljungman","doi":"10.1111/aogs.15049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Overall childbirth experience scores are used both in research and in clinical settings. Since it is still not fully understood what assessment of childbirth experience on a single-item numeric rating scale or visual analog scale represents, the aim of this study was to explore women's reasoning and thoughts when rating overall childbirth experience numerically.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A qualitative interview study of 26 women was conducted using a think-aloud technique at a university referral hospital in Sweden. A manifest qualitative content analysis was performed to generate categories and sub-categories representing how women decided which single value should represent their experience of giving birth.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two main categories emerged from the analysis. The first, Strategies for choosing a number, reflects variations in how the women approached the rating scale itself and includes five sub-categories, each relating to a different strategy: (1) Comparison, (2) Start from the maximum value, (3) Start from the middle, (4) Weigh certain experiences more heavily, and (5) A means to an end. The second category, Specific factors considered in the rating, includes four sub-categories, representing groups of factors contributing to the final childbirth experience score: (1) The time period, (2) Events linked to strong emotions, (3) Perceived support, and (4) Previous expectations. What the women included in their overall childbirth experience was hence translated into a number, using strategies from the first category and factors from the second category.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The considerable variations in how women approach the rating scale, and what they include in the assessment of overall childbirth experience, suggest that not only the childbirth experience itself but also the reasoning when evaluating it, is multifaceted. A standardized phrasing of the question and a clear purpose for the evaluation is warranted to strengthen the validity of the measurement. When used clinically for identifying women in need of support after childbirth, the rating should be followed by a conversation about the experience of giving birth, independent of the value chosen.</p>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rating of overall childbirth experience: A qualitative study of a quantitative measurement.\",\"authors\":\"Frida Viirman, Reidun Jidrot, Linn Lundström, Lisa Ljungman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aogs.15049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Overall childbirth experience scores are used both in research and in clinical settings. Since it is still not fully understood what assessment of childbirth experience on a single-item numeric rating scale or visual analog scale represents, the aim of this study was to explore women's reasoning and thoughts when rating overall childbirth experience numerically.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A qualitative interview study of 26 women was conducted using a think-aloud technique at a university referral hospital in Sweden. A manifest qualitative content analysis was performed to generate categories and sub-categories representing how women decided which single value should represent their experience of giving birth.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two main categories emerged from the analysis. The first, Strategies for choosing a number, reflects variations in how the women approached the rating scale itself and includes five sub-categories, each relating to a different strategy: (1) Comparison, (2) Start from the maximum value, (3) Start from the middle, (4) Weigh certain experiences more heavily, and (5) A means to an end. The second category, Specific factors considered in the rating, includes four sub-categories, representing groups of factors contributing to the final childbirth experience score: (1) The time period, (2) Events linked to strong emotions, (3) Perceived support, and (4) Previous expectations. What the women included in their overall childbirth experience was hence translated into a number, using strategies from the first category and factors from the second category.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The considerable variations in how women approach the rating scale, and what they include in the assessment of overall childbirth experience, suggest that not only the childbirth experience itself but also the reasoning when evaluating it, is multifaceted. A standardized phrasing of the question and a clear purpose for the evaluation is warranted to strengthen the validity of the measurement. When used clinically for identifying women in need of support after childbirth, the rating should be followed by a conversation about the experience of giving birth, independent of the value chosen.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.15049\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.15049","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

总体分娩经验评分用于研究和临床设置。由于目前尚不完全了解单项数字评定量表或视觉模拟量表对分娩经历的评估,本研究的目的是探讨女性在对整体分娩经历进行数字评定时的推理和想法。材料和方法:在瑞典的一所大学转诊医院,对26名妇女进行了定性访谈研究,使用了有声思考技术。进行了明显的定性内容分析,以产生类别和子类别,代表妇女如何决定哪一个单一的价值应该代表她们的生育经验。结果:从分析中出现了两个主要类别。第一个,选择数字的策略,反映了女性如何处理评分量表本身的变化,包括五个子类别,每个都与不同的策略相关:(1)比较,(2)从最大值开始,(3)从中间开始,(4)更重视某些经验,(5)a意味着结束。第二类,评级中考虑的具体因素,包括四个子类别,代表影响最终分娩体验得分的因素组:(1)时间段,(2)与强烈情绪相关的事件,(3)感知支持,(4)先前期望。因此,使用第一类策略和第二类因素,将妇女在其整体分娩经历中包含的内容转化为数字。结论:妇女如何使用评分量表,以及她们在评估整体分娩经历时所包含的内容的相当大的差异表明,不仅分娩经历本身,而且评估时的推理也是多方面的。标准化的问题措辞和明确的评估目的是必要的,以加强测量的有效性。当临床上用于确定分娩后需要支持的妇女时,评分之后应该是关于分娩经验的谈话,与所选择的值无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rating of overall childbirth experience: A qualitative study of a quantitative measurement.

Introduction: Overall childbirth experience scores are used both in research and in clinical settings. Since it is still not fully understood what assessment of childbirth experience on a single-item numeric rating scale or visual analog scale represents, the aim of this study was to explore women's reasoning and thoughts when rating overall childbirth experience numerically.

Material and methods: A qualitative interview study of 26 women was conducted using a think-aloud technique at a university referral hospital in Sweden. A manifest qualitative content analysis was performed to generate categories and sub-categories representing how women decided which single value should represent their experience of giving birth.

Results: Two main categories emerged from the analysis. The first, Strategies for choosing a number, reflects variations in how the women approached the rating scale itself and includes five sub-categories, each relating to a different strategy: (1) Comparison, (2) Start from the maximum value, (3) Start from the middle, (4) Weigh certain experiences more heavily, and (5) A means to an end. The second category, Specific factors considered in the rating, includes four sub-categories, representing groups of factors contributing to the final childbirth experience score: (1) The time period, (2) Events linked to strong emotions, (3) Perceived support, and (4) Previous expectations. What the women included in their overall childbirth experience was hence translated into a number, using strategies from the first category and factors from the second category.

Conclusions: The considerable variations in how women approach the rating scale, and what they include in the assessment of overall childbirth experience, suggest that not only the childbirth experience itself but also the reasoning when evaluating it, is multifaceted. A standardized phrasing of the question and a clear purpose for the evaluation is warranted to strengthen the validity of the measurement. When used clinically for identifying women in need of support after childbirth, the rating should be followed by a conversation about the experience of giving birth, independent of the value chosen.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
×
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