Background. The aim of the ReproQuestionnaire (ReproQ) is to measure the client's experience with maternity care, following WHO's responsiveness model. To support quality improvement, ReproQ should be able to discriminate best from worst organisational units.
Methods. We sent questionnaires to 27,487 third-trimester pregnant women (response 31%) and to 37,230 women 6 weeks after childbirth (response 39%). For analysis we first summarized the ReproQ domain scores into three summary scores: total score (all eight domains), personal score (four personal domains), and setting score (four setting domains). Second, we estimated the proportion of variance across perinatal units attributable to the `actual' difference across perinatal units using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Third, we assessed the ability of ReproQ to discriminate between perinatal units based on both a statistical approach using multilevel regression analyses, and a relevance approach based on the minimally important difference (MID). Finally, we compared the domain scores of the best and underperforming units.
Results. ICCs ranged between 0.004 and 0.025 for the summary scores, and between 0.002 and 0.125 for the individual domains. ReproQ was able to identify the best and worst performing units with both the statistical and relevance approach. The statistical approach was able to identify four underperforming units during childbirth (total score), while the relevance approach identified 10 underperforming units.
Conclusions. ReproQ, a valid and efficient measure of client experiences in maternity care, has the ability to discriminate well across perinatal units, and is suitable for benchmarking under routine conditions.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Client experiences, Responsiveness, Performance, Benchmarking, Quality improvement
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7575, hdl.handle.net/1765/123939
Journal PeerJ
Citation
Scheerhagen, M, van Stel, H.F, Franx, A, Birnie, E, & Bonsel, G.J. (2019). The discriminative power of the ReproQ. PeerJ, 7. doi:10.7717/peerj.7575