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).

Examining respect, autonomy, and mistreatment in childbirth in the US: do provider type and place of birth matter?

BACKGROUND: Analyses of factors that determine quality of perinatal care consistently rely on clinical markers, while failing to assess experiential outcomes. Understanding how model of care and birth setting influence experiences of respect, autonomy, and decision making, is essential for comprehensive assessment of quality. METHODS: We examined responses (n = 1771) to an online cross-sectional national survey capturing experiences of perinatal care in the United States. We used validated patient-oriented measures and scales to assess four domains of experience: (1) decision-making, (2) respect, (3) mistreatment, and (4) time spent during visits. We categorized the provider type and birth setting into three groups: midwife at community birth, midwife at hospital-birth, and physician at hospital-birth. For each group, we used multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, to estimate the odds of experiential outcomes in all the four domains. RESULTS: Compared to those cared for by physicians in hospitals, individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy (aOR: 5.22, 95% CI: 3.65-7.45), higher respect (aOR: 5.39, 95% CI: 3.72-7.82) and lower odds of mistreatment (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26). We found significant differences across birth settings: participants cared for by midwives in the community settings had significantly better experiential outcomes than those in the hospital settings: high- autonomy (aOR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.66-4.27), respect (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.81-6.14), mistreatment (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.34), time spent (aOR: 8.06, 95% CI: 4.26-15.28). CONCLUSION: Participants reported better experiential outcomes when cared for by midwives than by physicians. And for those receiving midwifery care, the quality of experiential outcomes was significantly higher in community settings than in hospital settings. Care settings matter and structures of hospital-based care may impair implementation of the person-centered midwifery care model.

Internet Search for Midwifery Fellowship Programs.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to identify existing US midwifery fellowships and their key attributes. METHODS: The study team adapted an internet-search methodology that was recently used to identify nurse practitioner fellowships and residencies and identified 1) search terms likely to locate websites describing or promoting midwifery fellowship or residency programs and 2) program attributes likely to be outlined in the websites. Two investigators conducted full, independent Google searches and then reconciled minor differences in terminology and findings via teleconference and simultaneous reviews of websites. RESULTS: Eight programs were identified that had sufficient information on a website to clearly establish them as midwifery fellowship programs. No programs used the term residency. The fellowship programs tended to be located in the western United States and predominantly focused on newly graduated certified nurse-midwives. Four programs were operated by university units, with the clinical experience located in the hospital. Four programs were operated by birth centers, with the clinical experience obtained in a combination of birth center, home, and/or hospital setting. Typical program lengths varied but were reported to be about 12 months. DISCUSSION: This study offers baseline information on the current midwifery fellowship offerings available via public internet search. This study also identifies key attributes of fellowships that may be helpful to stakeholders as they consider the role of fellowships for midwifery graduates and any need for accountability, such as accreditation review, among the programs.