Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 5 – uploaded by Amanda Bradford-Janke

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Factor (Subscale) items

Table 5 Factor (Subscale) items

Related Figures (12)

Figure 1 Flow chart of five phases of development and testing of the QPCQ.
Figure 1 Flow chart of five phases of development and testing of the QPCQ.
Table 1 Prenatal care guidelines reviewed to generate items for the QPCQ based on “A” grade evidence
Table 1 Prenatal care guidelines reviewed to generate items for the QPCQ based on “A” grade evidence
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of participants ir phases three, four, and five’
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of participants ir phases three, four, and five’
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of participants ir phases three, four, and five’ (Continued)
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of participants ir phases three, four, and five’ (Continued)
‘Missing responses were excluded from analyses. *Halifax did not participate in Phase Five of the study. **Percentages reported for prenatal care providers do not add to 100 as women were instructed to check off all that applied. ***In Phase Five, responses for these items are reported for Time 2 participants (n= 194 postpartum women).
‘Missing responses were excluded from analyses. *Halifax did not participate in Phase Five of the study. **Percentages reported for prenatal care providers do not add to 100 as women were instructed to check off all that applied. ***In Phase Five, responses for these items are reported for Time 2 participants (n= 194 postpartum women).
Table 4 QPCQ factor (or subscale) means and standard deviations (SD) from phase four (N = 422)
Table 4 QPCQ factor (or subscale) means and standard deviations (SD) from phase four (N = 422)
Table 3 Items loading on each factor, corrected item-total subscale correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted from subscale (Continued) There were 234 participants at Time 1, 194 at Time 2, and 158 at Time 3, demonstrating some attrition over time. There were no statistically significant differences in mean scores across time periods for the majority of the QPCQ subscales (Tables 6, 7, and 8). Although there was a significant difference in mean score for the Antici- patory Guidance subscale between Time 1 and 2 (d= 0.22) and between Time 1 and 3 (d=0.17), and for the mean QPCQ score between Time 1 and 2 (d =0.07), the differences in mean scores were small and deemed not to be clinically significant. The intra-class correlation co- efficient (ICC) was also used to examine stability of the QPCQ subscale scores across the three time periods, and varied from 0.67 to 0.76 (Table 9). The ICC for the total QPCQ score was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.85).
Table 3 Items loading on each factor, corrected item-total subscale correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted from subscale (Continued) There were 234 participants at Time 1, 194 at Time 2, and 158 at Time 3, demonstrating some attrition over time. There were no statistically significant differences in mean scores across time periods for the majority of the QPCQ subscales (Tables 6, 7, and 8). Although there was a significant difference in mean score for the Antici- patory Guidance subscale between Time 1 and 2 (d= 0.22) and between Time 1 and 3 (d=0.17), and for the mean QPCQ score between Time 1 and 2 (d =0.07), the differences in mean scores were small and deemed not to be clinically significant. The intra-class correlation co- efficient (ICC) was also used to examine stability of the QPCQ subscale scores across the three time periods, and varied from 0.67 to 0.76 (Table 9). The ICC for the total QPCQ score was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.85).
Table 5 Number of participants per site for each time period in phase five of the study *T1=time one, T2 =time two, T3 = time three.
Table 5 Number of participants per site for each time period in phase five of the study *T1=time one, T2 =time two, T3 = time three.
Table 6 Comparison of QPCQ subscale and total scores between Time 1 and Time 2 in Phase five, using paired t-test
Table 6 Comparison of QPCQ subscale and total scores between Time 1 and Time 2 in Phase five, using paired t-test
Table 7 Comparison of QPCQ subscale and total scores between Time 1 and Time 3 in Phase five, using paired t-test
Table 7 Comparison of QPCQ subscale and total scores between Time 1 and Time 3 in Phase five, using paired t-test
Table 9 Intra-class correlation coefficients for QPCQ subscales across three time points in Phase five
Table 9 Intra-class correlation coefficients for QPCQ subscales across three time points in Phase five
Table 8 Comparison of QPCQ subscale and total scores between Time 2 and Time 3 in Phase five, using paired t-test expertise of the health professional, the human dimension of the relationship between the caregiver and the patient (interpersonal skill), and the structural aspects that deter- mine the context in which the health care is provided [17]. Hildingsson and Thomas analyzed responses of 827 Swedish pregnant women to an open ended question in a survey, and grouped the findings into the following cat- egories: technical aspects of care (being skilled and com- petent), psychological aspects of care (being a good listener, being supportive, treating the woman with re- spect), personal characteristics (not judging, not being rushed), health-related content and information (checking the baby’s health, providing information about physical and mental changes and breastfeeding), and structural as- pects of provider visits (enough time during visits, con- tinuity of care) [19]. The items in the QPCQ capture the majority of these aforementioned elements of quality of prenatal care.
Table 8 Comparison of QPCQ subscale and total scores between Time 2 and Time 3 in Phase five, using paired t-test expertise of the health professional, the human dimension of the relationship between the caregiver and the patient (interpersonal skill), and the structural aspects that deter- mine the context in which the health care is provided [17]. Hildingsson and Thomas analyzed responses of 827 Swedish pregnant women to an open ended question in a survey, and grouped the findings into the following cat- egories: technical aspects of care (being skilled and com- petent), psychological aspects of care (being a good listener, being supportive, treating the woman with re- spect), personal characteristics (not judging, not being rushed), health-related content and information (checking the baby’s health, providing information about physical and mental changes and breastfeeding), and structural as- pects of provider visits (enough time during visits, con- tinuity of care) [19]. The items in the QPCQ capture the majority of these aforementioned elements of quality of prenatal care.
Related topics:
NursingPsychometricsQuality of Mental Health CareMedicinePublic health systems and services researchTime FactorsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesQuality of health carePaediatrics and reproductive medicine
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved