Assessment of responsiveness and minimum important difference of the Maternal perception of Childbirth Fatigue Questionnaire (MCFQ)

Main Article Content

Alexandre Delgado
Andrea Lemos
Paulo Sávio Angeiras de Góes

Abstract

Introduction: The assessment of responsiveness and the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) is the basis for validating the Maternal perception of Childbirth Fatigue Questionnaire (MCFQ). Objective: To assess the responsiveness and determine the value of the MCID for the MCFQ. Methods: This is an observational study, conducted at HC-UFPE with 50 parturients in active labor. The MCFQ was applied in two moments: in the initial evaluation (EV1), performed at the beginning of labor between 4-6 cm of uterine dilation, and final (EV2), six hours after the first evaluation. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the effect size (ES), and standardized response mean (SRM), considering that values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 points represent respectively small, moderate, or large values of responsiveness. The ability to detect change through the questionnaire was also assessed by the t-test. The level of significance adopted for this analysis was p less than 0.05. The MCID was verified based on the calculation of the standard error of measurement (SEM) index. Results: The MCFQ showed values of 0.4 and 0.6 for ES and SEM respectively and a p-value <0.001, thus showing a good capacity for change. The value of the MCID for this population was seven points. Conclusion: MCFQ presents a potentially significant change with a value of the MCID of seven points after six hours of active labor.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Delgado, A., Lemos, A., & Góes, P. S. A. de. (2022). Assessment of responsiveness and minimum important difference of the Maternal perception of Childbirth Fatigue Questionnaire (MCFQ). ABCS Health Sciences. https://doi.org/10.7322/abcshs.2020181.1627
Section
Original Articles

References

Delgado A, Silva DF, Pereira JIS, Arruda IPDMA. Avaliação do nível de fadiga materna durante o primeiro período do trabalho de parto: um estudo de corte transversal. Vittalle Rev Cienc Saude. 2019;31(2):47-52. https://doi.org/10.14295/vittalle.v31i2.8945

Tzeng YL, Chao YMY, Kuo SY, Teng YK. Childbirth-related fatigue trajectories during labour. J Adv Nurs. 2008;63(3):240-9. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04732.x

Tzeng YL, Yang YL, Kuo PC, Lin YC, Chen SL. Pain, anxiety, and fatigue during labor: a prospective, repeated measures study. J Nurs Res. 2017;25(1):59-67. http://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000165

Martins LMM. Fisioterapia respiratória como atenuante para a fadiga muscular na gestante em trabalho de parto. RACE Rev Adm Cesmac. 2020;9:127-39.

Pugh LC. Childbirth and the measurement of fatigue. J Nurs Meas. 1993;1(1):57-66.

Delgado A, Maia T, Melo RS, Lemos A. Birth ball use for women in labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2019;35:92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2019.01.015

Biana CB, Cecagno D, Porto AR, Cecagno S, Marques VA, Soares MC. Non-pharmacological therapies applied in pregnancy and labor: an integrative review. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2021;55:e03681. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-220X201901970368

Lemos A, Amorim MMR, Dornelas AA, Souza AI, Cabral Filho JE, Correia JB. Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3(3):CD009124. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009124.pub3

Abasi Z, Abedian Z, Azghdi HP, Fadei AR, Esmaeili HA. Study of the effect of massage therapy on the intensity of labor fatigue in labor. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci. 2007;14(3):172-8.

Ebrahimzadeh S, Golmakani N, Kabirian M, Shakeri MT. Study of correlation between maternal fatigue and uterine contraction pattern in the active phase of labour. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(11-12):1563-9. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04084.x

Delgado AM, Oliveira PNF, Goes PSA, Lemos A. Development and analysis of measurement properties of the ‘‘maternal perception of childbirth fatigue questionnaire’’ (MCFQ). Braz J Phys Ther. 2019;23(2):125-31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2019.01.004

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(12):1204-17. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00407-3

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012

Tewee CB, Bot SDM, Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

Schünemann HJ, Guyatt HG. Commentary - Goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, Where Do You Come From? Health Serv Res. 2005;40(2):593-97. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00374.x

Nordin A, Taft C, Lundgren-Nilsson A, Dencker A. Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures - a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:62. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0167-6