Volume 4, Issue 3 (August 2025)                   Health Science Monitor 2025, 4(3): 234-242 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Samieizadehtoosi T, Rezaei M A, Mohammadinia N, Akbari N, Ramezankhani A, Mehrabi Y. Design and Psychometric Assessment Tool of Perceived Barriers to Advocacy for Normal Birth Among Obstetricians and Midwives: an Exploratory Sequential Mixed-method Study. Health Science Monitor 2025; 4 (3) :234-242
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-241-en.html
Department of Community Health Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Bam University of Medical Sciences, Bam, Iran
Abstract:   (195 Views)
Background Promoting normal birth is a key priority in maternal health. Midwives and obstetricians, as primary healthcare providers, play a crucial role in advocating for normal birth. This study aimed to develop and validate a psychometric tool to assess perceived barriers to advocating for normal birth among midwives and obstetricians.
Methods This study employed an exploratory sequential mixed-method design in the form of a tool design. In the first phase, an exploratory qualitative approach based on grounded theory was applied. Twenty-two in-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted in 16 public and private hospitals in Tehran, using purposive sampling, and analyzed using MAXQDA 10 software. After evaluating content validity, 80 items were included in factor analysis. In the quantitative phase of Psychometric testing, the questionnaire was distributed to 350 participants using a cluster sampling method. Exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to evaluate and identify 17 underlying factors. Reliability of the instrument was evaluated using Cronbach’s α coefficients and a test-retest procedure.
Results After qualitative data analysis, an initial set of 106 main items was developed and subjected to content validity evaluation by a panel of experts. The impact score, CVI, and CVR were 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. The items were then reduced to 80, which were included in an exploratory factor analysis based on a sample of 324 participants, resulting in 17 factors. Finally, 78 items across eight domains were confirmed (KMO = 0.881). The Cronbach’s α coefficient for the entire questionnaire was 0.97, indicating excellent internal consistency. The questionnaire underwent rigorous validation.
Conclusion This tool effectively measures the views of midwives and obstetricians on barriers to advocating for normal birth, guiding targeted interventions, and engaging key stakeholders in improvements.
Full-Text [PDF 375 kb]   (65 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Health promotion and disease prevention
Received: 2025/05/26 | Accepted: 2025/08/25 | Published: 2025/08/19

References
1. WHO. Improving maternal and newborn health and survival and reducing stillbirth: progress report 2023: World Health Organization; 2023. [Google Books]
2. Leinweber J, Stramrood C. Improving birth experiences and provider interactions: Expert opinion on critical links in Maternity care. Eur J Midwifery. 2024; 8:53. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Downe S. What is normal birth and why does it matter. CICS-Publicações/eBooks; 2014. p. 463-5. [Google Scholar]
4. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Shirzad M, Shakibazadeh E, Hajimiri K, Betran AP, Jahanfar S, Bohren MA, et al. Prevalence of and reasons for women's, family members', and health professionals' preferences for cesarean section in Iran: a mixed-methods systematic review. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):3. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Orfali K. Beyond numbers: the multiple cultural meanings of rising cesarean rates worldwide. Am J Bioethics. 2012;12(7):54-6. [DOI] [PMID]
7. Raoofi S, Khosravizadeh O, Ahadinezhad B, Khan Mohammadi S, Arefi S, Shahsavari S. Effect of health transformation plan on natural childbirth and cesarean section indicators: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis in a Private Hospital of Tehran. Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2020;23(5):51-9. [Google Scholar]
8. Angolile CM, Max BL, Mushemba J, Mashauri HL. Global increased cesarean section rates and public health implications: A call to action. Health Sci Rep. 2023;6(5):e1274. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Chien P. Global rising rates of caesarean sections. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2021;128(5):781-2. [DOI] [PMID]
10. Kananikandeh S, Amin Shokravi F, Mirghafourvand M, Jahanfar S. Factors of the childbirth fear among nulliparous women in Iran. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):547. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Moslehi S, Kazemnejad A, Mohaddesi H, Karimi H. Determination of a 12-year trend of cesarean surgery and vaginal delivery in West Azerbaijan province of Iran and its prediction until 2018. Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2018;21(6):71-9. [Google Scholar]
12. Gould T, Louise Fleming M, Parker E. Advocacy for health: revisiting the role of health promotion. Health Promot J Austr. 2012;23(3):165-70. [DOI] [PMID]
13. Chapman S. Reflections on a 38-year career in public health advocacy: 10 pieces of advice to early career researchers and advocates. Public Health Res Pract. 2015;25(2):e2521514. [DOI]
14. Flavel J, Freeman T, Musolino C, Baum F. Health promotion and the need to accelerate advocacy for health equity. Oxford University Press US; 2024. p. daae040. [DOI] [PMID]
15. Firouznia R, Dargahi H, Jafari Koshki T, Khaledian Z. Challenges of Iranian maternal health program from midwives' perspectives: a qualitative study. Jundishapur Journal of Health Sciences. 2019;11(3):e92354. [DOI]
16. Levine MS, Lowe NK, editors. Nurse attitudes toward childbirth: A concept clarification. Hoboken: Wiley Online Library; 2014. [DOI] [PMID]
17. Berdzuli N, Llop-Gironés A, Farcasanu D, Butu C, Grbic M, Betran AP. From evidence to tailored decision-making: a qualitative research of barriers and facilitating factors for the implementation of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section in Romania. BMJ open. 2024;14(2):e065004. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Kingdon C, Downe S, Betran AP. Women's and communities' views of targeted educational interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):130. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Altin S, Passon A, Kautz-Freimuth S, Berger B, Stock S. A qualitative study on barriers to evidence-based practice in patient counseling and advocacy in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):317. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Ghelichkhani S, Masoumi SZ, Oshvandi K, Kazemi F, Ebadian MR. Attitude of Pregnant Women in Choosing the type of Delivery: A Qualitative Study . Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute. 2021;35(4):202-9. [Google Scholar]
21. Chepkorir M. The Determinants of Maternal Mortality in Kenya: a Spatio-temporal Analysis [thesis]. Nairobi, Kenya: University of Nairobi; 2024. [Google Scholar]
22. Welteroth E. We Shouldn't Be Dying in Birth Anymore. Glamour [Internet]. 2024 Apr 26 [cited 2025 April 5]. Available from: https://www.glamour.com/story/elaine-welteroth-we-shouldnt-be-dying-in-birth-anymore. [Google Scholar]
23. Rezapour Nasrabad R. Criteria of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Journal of qualitative research in health sciences. 2017;6(4):493-9. [Google Scholar]
24. Adib hajbagheri M, Parvizi S, Salsali M. Qualitative research methods, [Persian] Tehran: boshra Publisher. 2012. [URL]
25. Woo K, Polit DF, Beck CT. Canadian essentials of nursing research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2017. [Google Scholar]
26. Ebadi A, Taghizadeh Z, Montazeri A, Shahvari Z, Tavousi M, Bagherzadeh R. Translation, development and psychometric properties of health related measures-Part 2: construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. Payesh (Health Monitor) Journal. 2017;16(4):445-55. [Google Scholar]
27. Gilbert GE, Prion S. Making sense of methods and measurement: Lawshe's content validity index. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12(12):530-1. [DOI]
28. Halek M, Holle D, Bartholomeyczik S. Development and evaluation of the content validity, practicability and feasibility of the Innovative dementia-oriented Assessment system for challenging behaviour in residents with dementia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):554. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Sundararajan S. Multivariate Analysis and Machine Learning Techniques: Feature Analysis in Data Science Using Python. 1st ed. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2025. [DOI] [PMCID]
30. Maskey R, Fei J, Nguyen H-O. Use of exploratory factor analysis in maritime research. The Asian journal of shipping and logistics. 2018;34(2):91-111. [DOI]
31. Sigudla J, Maritz JE. Exploratory factor analysis of constructs used for investigating research uptake for public healthcare practice and policy in a resource-limited setting, South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):1423. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
32. Ebrahimipour S, Nakhaee N. The obstacles of choosing vaginal delivery and policies to increase it from the point of view of gynecologists and midwives. Health and Development Journal. 2016;5(1):71-8. [Google Scholar]
33. Ardakani ZB, Navabakhsh M, Ranjbar F, Tremayne S, Akhondi MM, Tabrizi AM. Dramatic rise in cesarean birth in Iran: A coalition of private medical practices and womenâ s choices. International Journal of Women's Health and Reproduction Sciences. 2020;8(3):245-58. [DOI]
34. Melman S, Schreurs RHP, Dirksen CD, Kwee A, Nijhuis JG, Smeets NAC, et al. Identification of barriers and facilitators for optimal cesarean section care: perspective of professionals. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):230. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
35. Thoonsen AC, Merten H, Broeders TT, Gans A, van Beusekom I, Delnoij DM, et al. The role of guideline organizations in nationwide guideline implementation: a qualitative study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024;22(1):174. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
36. Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2001; 286:2578-2585. [DOI] [PMID]
37. Jansson BS, Nyamathi A, Duan L, Kaplan C, Heidemann G, Ananias D. Validation of the Patient Advocacy Engagement Scale for health professionals. Res Nurs Health. 2015;38(2):162-72. [DOI] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2025 All Rights Reserved | Health Science Monitor

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb