Development of a questionnaire on preferences and values for prenatal preventive measures for perineal injury_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

WAN Yejuan ¹ ,  CAO Xiao ^2,3 , SUN Mingyao ³ , LAI Honghao ⁴ , YANG Qiuyu ⁴ , DENG Xiyuan ⁵ , TANG Xiaolin ¹ ,  GE Long ^4,6

1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Third Hospital of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
2. National Children's Medical Center / Department of Infectious Diseases, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100000, P. R. China;
3. Evidence Based Nursing Centre, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
4. Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
5. Prenatal Diagnostic Center, Gansu Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital / Central Hospital of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730050, P. R. China;
6. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

CAO Xiao, Email: 1303232198@qq.com; GE Long, Email: gelong2009@163.com

Keywords：

Perineal injury; Prenatal prevention; Preferences and values; Questionnaire survey; Reliability; Validity

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202312086

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To develop a survey questionnaire on preferences and values regarding perineal injury prevention measures during pregnancy and conduct reliability and validity testing. Methods Combining literature review, qualitative interviews, and expert consultations, we summarized key elements of perineal injury prevention during pregnancy and synthesized the best evidence. Through multiple discussions within the core working group, a survey questionnaire on preferences and values regarding perineal injury prevention measures during pregnancy was formulated. Using convenience sampling, pregnant women were recruited, and a pre-survey was conducted using the questionnaire. Pre-survey results were analyzed using item analysis and reliability and validity testing methods to validate and refine the questionnaire. Results The questionnaire was compiled based on the theory of evidence-based decision-making. The initial version of the questionnaire was developed by combining systematic evaluation, network meta-analysis, and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire was modified and improved through expert consultation, group discussion, and pre-investigation, which ensured that the questionnaire had good reliability, validity, and practicability. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.87, a split-half reliability was 0.71, and a content validity index was 0.97 of the survey questionnaire. Conclusion The present version of the perineal injury preventive measures preference and values questionnaire has good reliability, validity, and practicability. It can serve as a valuable tool for investigating preferences and values related to perineal injury prevention during pregnancy.

1.	Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean. (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med, 1997, 44(5): 681-692.
2.	Taithongchai A, Veiga SI, Sultan AH, et al. The consequences of undiagnosed obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) following vaginal delivery. Int Urogynecol J, 2020, 31(3): 635-641.
3.	Darmody E, Bradshaw C, Atkinson S. Women's experience of obstetric anal sphincter injury following childbirth: an integrated review. Midwifery, 2020, 91(31): 102820.
4.	Molyneux R, Fowler G, Slade P. The effects of perineal trauma on immediate self-reported birth experience in first-time mothers. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol, 2022, 43(2): 228-234.
5.	Woolner AM, Ayansina D, Black M, et al. The impact of third- or fourth-degree perineal tears on the second pregnancy: a cohort study of 182 445 Scottish women. PLoS One, 2019, 14(4): e0215180.
6.	Lo SH, Lawrence C, Martí Y, et al. Patient and caregiver treatment preferences in type 2 and non-ambulatory type 3 spinal muscular atrophy: a discrete choice experiment survey in five european countries. Pharmacoeconomics, 2022, 40(Suppl 1): 103-115.
7.	van Dijk JD, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Marshall DA, et al. An empirical comparison of discrete choice experiment and best-worst scaling to estimate stakeholders' risk tolerance for hip replacement surgery. Value Health, 2016, 19(4): 316-322.
8.	Crossnohere NL, Fischer R, Vroom E, et al. A comparison of caregiver and patient preferences for treating Duchene muscular dystrophy. Patient, 2022, 15(5): 577-588.
9.	Fueki K, Yoshida-Kohno E, Inamochi Y, et al. Patient satisfaction and preference with thermoplastic resin removable partial dentures: a randomised cross-over trial. J Prosthodont Res, 2020, 64(1): 20-25.
10.	Wasmann KA, Wijsman P, van Dieren S, et al. Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Open, 2019, 9(10): e031151.
11.	Elwyn G. Shared decision making: what is the work. Patient Educ Couns, 2021, 104(7): 1591-1595.
12.	耿劲松, 鲍海妮, 余小兰, 等. “证据与价值对决策的影响”框架在知证决策中应用的方法学. 中国卫生资源, 2020, 23(4): 342-347.
13.	王晋芳, 徐杨, 陈延亭, 等. 顺产产妇会阴损伤预防与修复护理最佳证据总结. 中国护理管理, 2018, 18(8): 1142-1147.
14.	汤海莉, 张玉, 龚敏琴, 等. 孕晚期妊娠期女性会阴按摩实施阻碍因素的质性研究. 上海护理, 2021, 21(7): 15-18.
15.	Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed. ): techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2008.
16.	Thomas M, Marshall DA, Choudhary D, et al. The application of preference elicitation methods in clinical trial design to quantify trade-offs: a scoping review. Patient, 2022, 15(4): 423-434.
17.	Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 6.1). 2019.
18.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
19.	吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务-SPSS操作与应用. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010.
20.	Taherdoost H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. Int J Acad Res Manag, 2016, 5: 28-36.
21.	Jagiasi JD, Chandra P, Yeotiwad G, et al. Translation and validation of the “lysholm knee scoring scale” specific questionnaire for knee symptoms: Into Marathi (M-LKS). Int J Med Res Prof, 2017, 3: 89-94.
22.	Cao X, Yang Q, Wang Q, et al. PFMT relevant strategies to prevent perineal trauma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2023, 308(2): 387-401.
23.	蒋小花, 沈卓之, 张楠楠, 等. 问卷的信度和效度分析. 现代预防医学, 2010, 37(3): 429-431.

1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean. (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med, 1997, 44(5): 681-692.
2. Taithongchai A, Veiga SI, Sultan AH, et al. The consequences of undiagnosed obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) following vaginal delivery. Int Urogynecol J, 2020, 31(3): 635-641.
3. Darmody E, Bradshaw C, Atkinson S. Women's experience of obstetric anal sphincter injury following childbirth: an integrated review. Midwifery, 2020, 91(31): 102820.
4. Molyneux R, Fowler G, Slade P. The effects of perineal trauma on immediate self-reported birth experience in first-time mothers. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol, 2022, 43(2): 228-234.
5. Woolner AM, Ayansina D, Black M, et al. The impact of third- or fourth-degree perineal tears on the second pregnancy: a cohort study of 182 445 Scottish women. PLoS One, 2019, 14(4): e0215180.
6. Lo SH, Lawrence C, Martí Y, et al. Patient and caregiver treatment preferences in type 2 and non-ambulatory type 3 spinal muscular atrophy: a discrete choice experiment survey in five european countries. Pharmacoeconomics, 2022, 40(Suppl 1): 103-115.
7. van Dijk JD, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Marshall DA, et al. An empirical comparison of discrete choice experiment and best-worst scaling to estimate stakeholders' risk tolerance for hip replacement surgery. Value Health, 2016, 19(4): 316-322.
8. Crossnohere NL, Fischer R, Vroom E, et al. A comparison of caregiver and patient preferences for treating Duchene muscular dystrophy. Patient, 2022, 15(5): 577-588.
9. Fueki K, Yoshida-Kohno E, Inamochi Y, et al. Patient satisfaction and preference with thermoplastic resin removable partial dentures: a randomised cross-over trial. J Prosthodont Res, 2020, 64(1): 20-25.
10. Wasmann KA, Wijsman P, van Dieren S, et al. Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Open, 2019, 9(10): e031151.
11. Elwyn G. Shared decision making: what is the work. Patient Educ Couns, 2021, 104(7): 1591-1595.
12. 耿劲松, 鲍海妮, 余小兰, 等. “证据与价值对决策的影响”框架在知证决策中应用的方法学. 中国卫生资源, 2020, 23(4): 342-347.
13. 王晋芳, 徐杨, 陈延亭, 等. 顺产产妇会阴损伤预防与修复护理最佳证据总结. 中国护理管理, 2018, 18(8): 1142-1147.
14. 汤海莉, 张玉, 龚敏琴, 等. 孕晚期妊娠期女性会阴按摩实施阻碍因素的质性研究. 上海护理, 2021, 21(7): 15-18.
15. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed. ): techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2008.
16. Thomas M, Marshall DA, Choudhary D, et al. The application of preference elicitation methods in clinical trial design to quantify trade-offs: a scoping review. Patient, 2022, 15(4): 423-434.
17. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 6.1). 2019.
18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
19. 吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务-SPSS操作与应用. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010.
20. Taherdoost H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. Int J Acad Res Manag, 2016, 5: 28-36.
21. Jagiasi JD, Chandra P, Yeotiwad G, et al. Translation and validation of the “lysholm knee scoring scale” specific questionnaire for knee symptoms: Into Marathi (M-LKS). Int J Med Res Prof, 2017, 3: 89-94.
22. Cao X, Yang Q, Wang Q, et al. PFMT relevant strategies to prevent perineal trauma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2023, 308(2): 387-401.
23. 蒋小花, 沈卓之, 张楠楠, 等. 问卷的信度和效度分析. 现代预防医学, 2010, 37(3): 429-431.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Latest ArticlesDevelopment of a questionnaire on preferences and values for prenatal preventive measures for perineal injury

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content