评估以人为中心的产妇护理量表:一项全球系统评价。

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2025-03-20 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103145
Osamuedeme J Odiase, Kierra Smith, Grace Ogunfunmi, Patience A Afulani
{"title":"评估以人为中心的产妇护理量表:一项全球系统评价。","authors":"Osamuedeme J Odiase, Kierra Smith, Grace Ogunfunmi, Patience A Afulani","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Person-centered maternity care (PCMC) refers to respectful, responsive, and compassionate childbirth care. The PCMC scale enables quantitative measurement of PCMC. Despite the widespread use of the PCMC scale, no global synthesis exists. We, therefore, conducted a global systematic review of studies using the PCMC scale to quantitatively assess women's childbirth experiences, evaluate the scale's psychometric properties, and identify predictors of PCMC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to September 3, 2024. Included studies used the PCMC scale by Afulani et al. to examine the facility-based childbirth experiences of women in any setting, with no time or language restrictions. Three reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts. We assessed study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. We utilized a standardized extraction template to extract full PCMC and sub-scale scores (standardizing scores to a 0-100 range for easier comparison), predictors, and psychometric properties. The primary outcome is the mean PCMC score.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our initial search yielded 415 articles, of which 41 publications from 32 independent samples were included. Most studies were conducted in Africa (63%). Mean PCMC scores were generally lower in studies from Africa (under 75), moderate in Asia (60 to over 90), and higher in North America (over 80). The lowest score reported was 38.2/100 (SD = 15.8) in an observational study conducted in Sierra Leone, while the highest was 97.1/100 (SD = 2.9) following an intervention in India. The lowest scoring domain across countries was communication and autonomy, with the lowest score at 18.1/100 in a study in Ethiopia. Positive predictors of PCMC included higher wealth, education, early antenatal care, and birth in lower-level and private health facilities. Inconsistent predictors included age, marital status, and obstetric complications.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>PCMC is sub-optimal globally, particularly in the domain of communication and autonomy. There are also inequities in PCMC driven by various sociodemographic and health systems-related factors. Interventions to improve women's experiences and to address the inequities are therefore needed.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"82 ","pages":"103145"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11976240/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the person-centered maternity care scale: a global systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Osamuedeme J Odiase, Kierra Smith, Grace Ogunfunmi, Patience A Afulani\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Person-centered maternity care (PCMC) refers to respectful, responsive, and compassionate childbirth care. The PCMC scale enables quantitative measurement of PCMC. Despite the widespread use of the PCMC scale, no global synthesis exists. We, therefore, conducted a global systematic review of studies using the PCMC scale to quantitatively assess women's childbirth experiences, evaluate the scale's psychometric properties, and identify predictors of PCMC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to September 3, 2024. Included studies used the PCMC scale by Afulani et al. to examine the facility-based childbirth experiences of women in any setting, with no time or language restrictions. Three reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts. We assessed study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. We utilized a standardized extraction template to extract full PCMC and sub-scale scores (standardizing scores to a 0-100 range for easier comparison), predictors, and psychometric properties. The primary outcome is the mean PCMC score.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our initial search yielded 415 articles, of which 41 publications from 32 independent samples were included. Most studies were conducted in Africa (63%). Mean PCMC scores were generally lower in studies from Africa (under 75), moderate in Asia (60 to over 90), and higher in North America (over 80). The lowest score reported was 38.2/100 (SD = 15.8) in an observational study conducted in Sierra Leone, while the highest was 97.1/100 (SD = 2.9) following an intervention in India. The lowest scoring domain across countries was communication and autonomy, with the lowest score at 18.1/100 in a study in Ethiopia. Positive predictors of PCMC included higher wealth, education, early antenatal care, and birth in lower-level and private health facilities. Inconsistent predictors included age, marital status, and obstetric complications.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>PCMC is sub-optimal globally, particularly in the domain of communication and autonomy. There are also inequities in PCMC driven by various sociodemographic and health systems-related factors. Interventions to improve women's experiences and to address the inequities are therefore needed.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"volume\":\"82 \",\"pages\":\"103145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11976240/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103145\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103145","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:以人为本的产科护理(PCMC)是指尊重,反应,和富有同情心的分娩护理。PCMC量表可以对PCMC进行定量测量。尽管PCMC尺度被广泛使用,但没有全球综合的存在。因此,我们对使用PCMC量表定量评估妇女分娩经历的研究进行了全球系统回顾,评估了该量表的心理测量特性,并确定了PCMC的预测因素。方法:检索PubMed、Web of Science和Embase数据库,检索时间为建站至2024年9月3日。纳入的研究使用Afulani等人的PCMC量表来检查妇女在任何环境下的分娩经历,没有时间或语言限制。三位审稿人独立评估标题、摘要和全文。我们使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的关键评估工具来评估研究质量。我们使用一个标准化的提取模板来提取完整的PCMC和子量表分数(将分数标准化到0-100范围,以便于比较)、预测因子和心理测量属性。主要结果是PCMC平均评分。结果:我们最初的检索得到415篇文章,其中包括来自32个独立样本的41篇出版物。大多数研究是在非洲进行的(63%)。非洲研究的PCMC平均得分一般较低(低于75分),亚洲研究的PCMC平均得分中等(60至90分以上),北美研究的PCMC平均得分较高(超过80分)。在塞拉利昂进行的一项观察性研究中报告的最低得分为38.2/100 (SD = 15.8),而在印度进行的干预后报告的最高得分为97.1/100 (SD = 2.9)。各国得分最低的领域是沟通和自治,在埃塞俄比亚的一项研究中得分最低,为18.1/100。PCMC的正向预测因子包括较高的财富、教育、早期产前护理和在较低水平和私立卫生机构分娩。不一致的预测因素包括年龄、婚姻状况和产科并发症。解释:PCMC在全球范围内是次优的,特别是在通信和自治领域。由各种社会人口和卫生系统相关因素驱动的PCMC中也存在不公平现象。因此,需要采取干预措施改善妇女的经历并解决不平等问题。资金:没有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of the person-centered maternity care scale: a global systematic review.

Background: Person-centered maternity care (PCMC) refers to respectful, responsive, and compassionate childbirth care. The PCMC scale enables quantitative measurement of PCMC. Despite the widespread use of the PCMC scale, no global synthesis exists. We, therefore, conducted a global systematic review of studies using the PCMC scale to quantitatively assess women's childbirth experiences, evaluate the scale's psychometric properties, and identify predictors of PCMC.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to September 3, 2024. Included studies used the PCMC scale by Afulani et al. to examine the facility-based childbirth experiences of women in any setting, with no time or language restrictions. Three reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts. We assessed study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. We utilized a standardized extraction template to extract full PCMC and sub-scale scores (standardizing scores to a 0-100 range for easier comparison), predictors, and psychometric properties. The primary outcome is the mean PCMC score.

Findings: Our initial search yielded 415 articles, of which 41 publications from 32 independent samples were included. Most studies were conducted in Africa (63%). Mean PCMC scores were generally lower in studies from Africa (under 75), moderate in Asia (60 to over 90), and higher in North America (over 80). The lowest score reported was 38.2/100 (SD = 15.8) in an observational study conducted in Sierra Leone, while the highest was 97.1/100 (SD = 2.9) following an intervention in India. The lowest scoring domain across countries was communication and autonomy, with the lowest score at 18.1/100 in a study in Ethiopia. Positive predictors of PCMC included higher wealth, education, early antenatal care, and birth in lower-level and private health facilities. Inconsistent predictors included age, marital status, and obstetric complications.

Interpretation: PCMC is sub-optimal globally, particularly in the domain of communication and autonomy. There are also inequities in PCMC driven by various sociodemographic and health systems-related factors. Interventions to improve women's experiences and to address the inequities are therefore needed.

Funding: None.

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
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
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