Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
Department of Global Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.
BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Jul;5(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012122.
There has been substantial progress in developing approaches to measure mistreatment of women during childbirth. However, less is known about the differences in measurement approaches. In this study, we compare measures of mistreatment obtained from the same women using labour observations and community-based surveys in Ghana, Guinea and Nigeria.
Experiences of mistreatment during childbirth are person-centred quality measures. As such, we assessed individual-level and population-level accuracy of labour observation relative to women's self-report for different types of mistreatment. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, percent agreement and population-level inflation factor (IF), assessing prevalence of mistreatment in labour observation divided by 'true' prevalence in women's self-report. We report the IF degree of bias as: low (0.75<IF<1.5), moderate (0.50<IF<0.75 or 1.5<IF<2.0) or high (IF≤0.50 or IF≥2.0).
1536 women across Ghana (n=779), Guinea (n=425) and Nigeria (n=332) were included. Most mistreatment items demonstrated better specificity than sensitivity: observation of any physical abuse (44% sensitive, 89% specific), any verbal abuse (61% sensitive, 73% specific) and presence of a labour companion (19% sensitive, 93% specific). Items for stigma (IF 0.16), pain relief requested (IF 0.38), companion present (IF 0.32) and lack of easy access to fluids (IF 0.46) showed high risk of bias, meaning labour observations would substantially underestimate true prevalence. Other items showed low or moderate bias.
Using self-report as the reference standard, labour observations demonstrated moderate-to-high specificity (accurately identifying lack of mistreatment) but low-to-moderate sensitivity (accurately identifying presence of mistreatment) among women. For overall prevalence, either women's self-report or observations can be used with low-moderate bias for most mistreatment items. However, given the dynamicity, complexity, and limitations in 'objectivity', some experiences of mistreatment (stigma, pain relief, labour companionship, easy access to fluids) require measurement via women's self-report. More work is needed to understand how subjectivity influences how well a measure represents individual's experiences.
在开发衡量分娩期妇女受虐待的方法方面已经取得了重大进展。然而,对于测量方法的差异知之甚少。在这项研究中,我们比较了加纳、几内亚和尼日利亚使用产时观察和基于社区的调查从同一批妇女那里获得的虐待措施。
分娩期受虐待经历是以人为中心的质量指标。因此,我们评估了产时观察相对于妇女自我报告的不同类型虐待的个体水平和人群水平准确性。我们计算了敏感性、特异性、百分比一致性和人群水平膨胀因子(IF),评估了产时观察中虐待的流行程度除以妇女自我报告中的“真实”流行程度。我们报告 IF 偏倚程度为:低(0.75<IF<1.5)、中(0.50<IF<0.75 或 1.5<IF<2.0)或高(IF≤0.50 或 IF≥2.0)。
加纳(n=779)、几内亚(n=425)和尼日利亚(n=332)共有 1536 名妇女被纳入研究。大多数虐待项目表现出较高的特异性而不是敏感性:任何身体虐待的观察(44%敏感,89%特异)、任何言语虐待(61%敏感,73%特异)和陪伴分娩的存在(19%敏感,93%特异)。耻辱感(IF 0.16)、要求止痛(IF 0.38)、陪伴存在(IF 0.32)和难以获得液体(IF 0.46)等项目存在高偏倚风险,这意味着产时观察将大大低估真实的流行程度。其他项目则表现出低或中度偏倚。
使用自我报告作为参考标准,在妇女中,产时观察表现出中等至高度的特异性(准确识别无虐待),但敏感性低至中等(准确识别虐待存在)。对于总体流行程度,大多数虐待项目都可以使用妇女自我报告或观察,偏倚程度低至中等。然而,鉴于主观性、复杂性和客观性的局限性,一些虐待经历(耻辱感、止痛、分娩陪伴、液体获取方便)需要通过妇女的自我报告进行测量。需要进一步研究以了解主观性如何影响衡量标准对个体经历的代表性。