Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb 23;12(2):e0171804.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171804. eCollection 2017.

The Mother's Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care

Affiliations

The Mother's Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care

Saraswathi Vedam et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate a new instrument that assesses women's autonomy and role in decision making during maternity care.

Design: Through a community-based participatory research process, service users designed, content validated, and administered a cross-sectional quantitative survey, including 31 items on the experience of decision-making.

Setting and participants: Pregnancy experiences (n = 2514) were reported by 1672 women who saw a single type of primary maternity care provider in British Columbia. They described care by a midwife, family physician or obstetrician during 1, 2 or 3 maternity care cycles. We conducted psychometric testing in three separate samples.

Main outcome measures: We assessed reliability, item-to-total correlations, and the factor structure of the The Mothers' Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale. We report MADM scores by care provider type, length of prenatal appointments, preferences for role in decision-making, and satisfaction with experience of decision-making.

Results: The MADM scale measures a single construct: autonomy in decision-making during maternity care. Cronbach alphas for the scale exceeded 0.90 for all samples and all provider groups. All item-to-total correlations were replicable across three samples and exceeded 0.7. Eigenvalue and scree plots exhibited a clear 90-degree angle, and factor analysis generated a one factor scale. MADM median scores were highest among women who were cared for by midwives, and 10 or more points lower for those who saw physicians. Increased time for prenatal appointments was associated with higher scale scores, and there were significant differences between providers with respect to average time spent in prenatal appointments. Midwifery care was associated with higher MADM scores, even during short prenatal appointments (<15 minutes). Among women who preferred to lead decisions around their care (90.8%), and who were dissatisfied with their experience of decision making, MADM scores were very low (median 14). Women with physician carers were consistently more likely to report dissatisfaction with their involvement in decision making.

Discussion: The Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale is a reliable instrument for assessment of the experience of decision making during maternity care. This new scale was developed and content validated by community members representing various populations of childbearing women in BC including women from vulnerable populations. MADM measures women's ability to lead decision making, whether they are given enough time to consider their options, and whether their choices are respected. Women who experienced midwifery care reported greater autonomy than women under physician care, when engaging in decision-making around maternity care options. Differences in models of care, professional education, regulatory standards, and compensation for prenatal visits between midwives and physicians likely affect the time available for these discussions and prioritization of a shared decision making process.

Conclusion: The MADM scale reflects person-driven priorities, and reliably assesses interactions with maternity providers related to a person's ability to lead decision-making over the course of maternity care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Scree plots for Samples 1, 2, and 3.
When examining construct validity indicators separately for physician and midwifery consumers in Sample 1, we found that factor loadings for women who were cared for by family physicians ranged from 0.73–0.88 (n = 264), 0.80–0.92 for women under the care of obstetricians (n = 150) and 0.64–0.91 for midwives (n = 927). For all care provider groups the scree plots showed one factor with an Eigenvalue above 5; all other Eigenvalues fell clearly below 1 (see Fig 2).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Scree plots by provider type (Sample 1).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Box plot: MADM scores by care provider type (Sample 1 = 1344).
Median and interquartile range of MADM scores by care provider group for pregnancy 1 (n = 1344). The horizontal line inside each box represents the median score for each provider group, and the upper and lower boundaries of each box represent the upper and lower quartiles. The vertical lines represent the range of scores, excluding outliers, which are represented by open circles and asterisks.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Average prenatal appointment lengths, by care provider type (n = 1723).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared Decision Making—The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care. New England Journal of Medicine [Internet]. Massachusetts Medical Society; 2012. February 29;366(9):780–1. Available from: 10.1056/NEJMp1109283 - DOI - PubMed
    1. CMA. Guidelines for Physicians in Interactions With Industry. Canadian Medical Association; [Internet]. 2007;1–5. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD08-01.pdf
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information: Patient Experience [Internet]. [cited 2015 Nov 2]. from: https://www.cihi.ca/en/health-system-performance/quality-of-care-and-out...
    1. Hodnett ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: A systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002;186(Supp 5):S160–72. - PubMed
    1. Hack TF, Degner LF, Watson P, Sinha L. Do patients benefit from participating in medical decision making? Longitudinal follow-up of women with breast cancer. Psycho-oncology [Internet]. 2006. January [cited 2015 Nov 2];15(1):9–19. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15669023 - PubMed