Measuring Satisfaction Among Low-Income Women: A Prenatal Care Questionnaire (original) (raw)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a prenatal care satisfaction scale. Method: A prenatal care satisfaction scale that included six dimensions of care based on the literature was tested during a telephone interview with 101 first-time African-American and Mexican-American mothers 18 and over who receive Medicaid. Results: The scale exhibited high reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95), as well as good construct validity. The correlation between the scale and rating of the quality of care overall was 0.74 (p < 0.001); the correlation between the scale and whether the women would recommend this provider to a friend was 0.67 (p < 0.001). Results from correlation and factor analysis suggested a different set of dimensions than those described in the literature. Conclusion: The 22-question satisfaction with prenatal care scale has excellent reliability and construct validity and taps six established dimensions of satisfaction, including the art of care, technical quality, access, physical environment, availability, and efficacy. The multidimensional scale allows for alternative groupings of the domains of satisfaction as our understanding of prenatal care satisfaction increases.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Berkanovic E, Marcus AL. Satisfaction with health services: Some policy implications. Med Care 1976;14:873–879.
    Google Scholar
  2. Thomas J, Penchansky R. Relating satisfaction with access to utilization of services. Med Care 1984;22:553–568.
    Google Scholar
  3. Zastowny T, Roghmann K, Cafferata G. Patient satisfaction and the use of health services, Explorations in causality. Med Care 1989;27:705–723.
    Google Scholar
  4. Aharony L, Strasser S. Patient satisfaction: What we know about and what we still need to explore. Med Care Rev 1993;50:49–79.
    Google Scholar
  5. Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, Burton T. Population-based surveys of access and consumer satisfaction with health care. Prepared for The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Contract No. 282-91-0027, 1994.
  6. Kaiser Commission on the Future of Medicaid. Medicaid facts. Washington, DC: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1995.
    Google Scholar
  7. Institute of Medicine. Preventing low birthweight. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.
    Google Scholar
  8. Alexander GR, Korenbrot CC. The role of prenatal care in preventing low birth weight. The future of children: Low birth weight. Center for the Future of Children. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 1995;5(1):103–20.
  9. Ware JE, Davies AR. Patients' perspectives on the quality of medical care. J Fam Pract 1988;26:393–402.
    Google Scholar
  10. Rubin HR. Can patients evaluate the quality of hospital care? Med Care Rev 1990;47:267–326.
    Google Scholar
  11. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR. Part A: Review of literature, overview of methods and results regarding construction of scales. Development and Validation of Scales to Measure Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Services (Vol. I, Final Report). NTIS No. PB 288-329. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1976.
    Google Scholar
  12. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann 1983;6:247–263.
    Google Scholar
  13. Ware JE, Hays RD. Methods for measuring patient satisfaction with specific medical encounters. Med Care 1988;26:393–402.
    Google Scholar
  14. Ross C, Steward D, Sinacore J. A comparative study of seven measures of patient satisfaction. Med Care 1995;33:392–406.
    Google Scholar
  15. Flynn SP. Continuity of care during pregnancy: The effect of provider continuity on outcome. J Fam Pract 1985;21:375–380.
    Google Scholar
  16. Lazarus E, Philipson E. A longitudinal study comparing the prenatal care of Puerto Rican and White women. Birth 1990;17:6–11.
    Google Scholar
  17. Martin C. How do you count maternal satisfaction? A user commissioned survey of maternity services. In: Roberts H, editor. Women's health counts. London: Routledge Press, 1990.
    Google Scholar
  18. Oakely A. Using medical care: The views and experiences of high-risk mothers. Health Serv Res 1991;26:651–669.
    Google Scholar
  19. Beech B, Ruzek S. Patient perceptions of barriers to utilization of prenatal services: An assessment of satisfaction with care at clinic settings. Unpublished report from the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, Office of Maternal and Child Health, 1992.
  20. Brown S, Lumley J. Antenatal care: A case of the inverse care law? Austral J Public Health 1993;17:95–103.
    Google Scholar
  21. Omar M, Schiffman R. Pregnant women's perceptions of prenatal care. Maternal Child Health Nurs J 1995;23:132–142.
    Google Scholar
  22. Handler A, Rosenberg D, Raube K, Kelley M. Care characteristics impacting low-income women's satisfaction with prenatal care. Med Care 1998;36:679–694.
    Google Scholar
  23. Handler A, Raube K, Kelley MA, Giachello A. Women's satisfaction with prenatal care settings: A focus group study. Birth 1996;23:31–37.
    Google Scholar
  24. Shear C, Gipe B, Matheis J, Levy M. Provider continuity and quality of medical care: A retrospective analysis of prenatal and perinatal outcome. Med Care 1983;21:1204–1210.
    Google Scholar
  25. Sullivan D, Beeman R. Satisfaction with maternity care: A matter of communication and choice. Med Care 1982;20:321–330.
    Google Scholar
  26. Gravely E, Littlefield J. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three staffing models for the delivery of low-risk prenatal care. Am J Public Health 1992;82:180–184.
    Google Scholar
  27. Kelley M, Perloff J, Morris N, Liu W. Primary care arrangements and access to care among African-American women in three Chicago communities. Women Health 1992;18:91–106.
    Google Scholar
  28. Ware JE. How to survey patient satisfaction. Drug Intel Clin Phar 1981;15:892–900.
    Google Scholar
  29. Handler A, Rosenberg D, Johnson T, Raube K, Kelley M. Prospective recruitment of women receiving prenatal care from diverse provider arrangements: A potential strategy. Matern Child Health J 1998;1:173–177.
    Google Scholar
  30. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;15:297–334.
    Google Scholar
  31. Stewart AL. Psychometric considerations in functional status instruments. In World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians (WONCA), Editor. Functional status measurement in primary care. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.
    Google Scholar
  32. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
    Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Health Administration Studies at the, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
    Kristiana Raube
  2. Maternal and Child Health Training Program of the, University of Illinois School of Public Health Community Health Sciences Division, Chicago, Illinois
    Arden Handler & Deborah Rosenberg

Authors

  1. Kristiana Raube
  2. Arden Handler
  3. Deborah Rosenberg

Corresponding author

Correspondence toKristiana Raube.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Raube, K., Handler, A. & Rosenberg, D. Measuring Satisfaction Among Low-Income Women: A Prenatal Care Questionnaire.Matern Child Health J 2, 25–33 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021841508698

Download citation