Development of measures for assessing mistreatment of women during facility-based childbirth based on labour observations. (6th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Berger, Blair O; Strobino, Donna M; Mehrtash, Hedieh; Bohren, Meghan A; Adu-Bonsaffoh, Kwame; Leslie, Hannah H; Irinyenikan, Theresa Azonima; Maung, Thae Maung; Balde, Mamadou Dioulde; Tunçalp, Özge
• Is Part Of: BMJ global health. Volume 5(2020)Supplement 2
• Publication Date: 2021-08-06
• Subjects: maternal health -- obstetrics -- public health -- cross-sectional survey; World health -- Periodicals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004080
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2059-7908

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Mistreatment of women during childbirth is increasingly recognised as a significant issue globally. Research and programmatic efforts targeting this phenomenon have been limited by a lack of validated measurement tools. This study aimed to develop a set of concise, valid and reliable multidimensional measures for mistreatment using labour observations applicable across multiple settings. Methods: Data from continuous labour observations of 1974 women in Nigeria (n=407), Ghana (n=912) and Guinea (n=655) were used from the cross-sectional WHO's multicountry study 'How women are treated during facility-based childbirth' (2016–2018). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to develop a scale measuring interpersonal abuse. Two indexes were developed through a modified Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development approach for generating composite indexes. Measures were evaluated for performance, validity and internal reliability. Results: Three mistreatment measures were developed: a 7-item Interpersonal Abuse Scale, a 3-item Exams & Procedures Index and a 12-item Unsupportive Birth Environment Index. Factor analysis results showed a consistent unidimensional factor structure for the Interpersonal Abuse Scale in all three countries based on factor loadings and interitem correlations, indicating good structural construct validity. The scale had a reliability coefficient of 0.71 in Nigeria and approached 0.60 in Ghana and Guinea. Low correlations (Spearman correlation range: −0.06–0.19; p≥0.05) between mistreatment measures supported our decision to develop three separate measures. Predictive criterion validation yielded mixed results across countries. Both items within measures and measure scores were internally consistent across countries; each item co-occurred with other items in a measure, and scores consistently distinguished between 'high' and 'low' mistreatment levels. Conclusion: The set of concise, comprehensive multidimensional measures of mistreatment can be used in future research and quality improvement initiatives targeting mistreatment to quantify burden, identify risk factors and determine its impact on health and well-being outcomes. Further validation and reliability testing of the measures in other contexts is needed.