Measuring midwives' perceptions of their practice climate across racial-ethnic identities: An invariance analysis of the Midwifery Practice Climate Scale.

Diversification of the midwifery workforce is key to addressing disparities in maternal health in the United States. Midwives who feel supported in their practice environments report less burnout and turnover; therefore, creating positive practice environments for midwives of color is an essential component of growing and retaining midwives of color in the workforce. The Midwifery Practice Climate Scale (MPCS) is a 10-item instrument developed through multiphase empirical analysis to measure midwives' practice environments, yet the MPCS had not been independently tested with midwives of color. We conducted invariance analyses to test whether latent means can be compared between midwives of color and non-Hispanic White samples. A step-up approach applied a series of increasingly stringent constraints to model estimations with multiple group confirmatory factor analyses with two pooled samples. A configural model was estimated as the basis of multiple group comparisons where all parameters were allowed to freely vary. Metric invariance was estimated by constraining item factor loadings to be equal. Scalar invariance was estimated by constraining intercepts of indicators to be equal. Each model was compared to the baseline model. The findings supported scalar invariance of MPCS across midwives of color and non-Hispanic White midwives, indicating that the MPCS is measuring the same intended construct across groups, and that differences in scores between these two groups reflect true group differences and are not related to measurement error. Additionally, in this sample, there was no statistically significant difference in perceptions of the practice environments across midwives of color and non-Hispanic White midwives (p > 0.05).

Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of vaporized nicotine products versus nicotine replacement therapy for tobacco smoking cessation in a low-socioeconomic status Australian population: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, tobacco smoking rates have declined but inequalities remain with significantly higher smoking prevalence among low-socioeconomic populations. Clinical trial data suggest vaporized nicotine products (VNPs) aid smoking cessation. Most VNP trials have used refillable tank systems, but newer generation (pod) devices now comprise the largest market share yet have limited clinical trial evidence on safety and effectiveness. This study evaluates the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of VNPs (pod and tank device) compared with nicotine replacement therapy ([NRT]-gum or lozenge) for smoking cessation. METHODS: This is a two-arm, open-label, superiority, parallel group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment. The RCT is conducted at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Participants are people who smoke daily, are interested in quitting and receive a government pension or allowance (N = 1058). Participants will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive 8 weeks of free: VNPs, with pod (40 mg/mL nicotine salt) and tank device (18 mg/mL freebase nicotine) in mixed flavours; or NRT (gum or lozenge; 4 mg). All participants will receive daily text message behavioural support for 5 weeks. Assessments will be undertaken by telephone at baseline, with three follow-up calls (two check-in calls within the first month and final follow-up at 7 months post randomization) to ascertain smoking status, treatment adherence and adverse events. The primary outcome is 6-month continuous abstinence verified by carbon monoxide breath test of ≤5ppm at 7-month follow-up. Safety and cost-effectiveness of VNPs versus NRT will also be evaluated. DISCUSSION: Further data are required to strengthen certainty of evidence for VNPs aiding smoking cessation, particularly for newer generation pod devices. To our knowledge, this trial is the first to offer choice of VNPs and no comparative effectiveness trial data exists for new pod devices. If effective, the findings can inform wider implementation of VNPs to aid smoking cessation in a priority group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000076875. Registered on 29 January 2021.  https://www.anzctr.org.au.