Labor unit culture and attitudes toward supporting vaginal birth-The Swedish version of the labor culture survey (S-LCS)-Psychometric properties

BACKGROUND

In order to evaluate interventions aimed at reducing cesarean births, care practitioners' attitudes are important to measure. The Labor Culture Survey (LCS) is a scale that measures individual and unit attitudes towards supporting vaginal birth. As no equivalent scale exists in Sweden, the aim was to translate, adapt, and validate the LCS and to investigate whether there were differences in attitudes toward supporting vaginal birth between maternity care practitioners.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study including midwives, physicians, and nurse assistants working with intrapartum care in five labor wards in Sweden. The original LCS was translated into Swedish, and six context-specific items were developed for the Swedish setting (SLCS). The translation was tested for face validity. Psychometric analysis was conducted using exploratory factor analysis with principal component analysis, parallel analysis, and principal axis factoring. Reliability was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD were calculated to analyze differences in attitudes between professions on the subscales of the S-LCS.

RESULTS

A total of 539 midwives, physicians, and nurse assistants participated. The final S-LCS showed a five-factor solution with the following subscales: Best Practices to reduce cesarean overuse, Unpredictability of vaginal birth, Unit Microculture, Maternal Agency, and Organizational Oversight. Chronbach alpha values varied from 0.60 to 0.83. Midwives were more supportive towards vaginal birth and less fearful of potential consequences of vaginal birth compared with physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The S-LCS demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties for use in Swedish maternity care. Further work to improve the scale should include additional items reflecting the subscale Maternal Agency.

A Narrative Review of Factors Historically Influencing Telehealth Use across Six Medical Specialties in the United States

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, studies in the US have identified wide variations in telehealth use across medical specialties. This is an intriguing problem, because the US has historically lacked a standardized set of telehealth coverage and reimbursement policies, which has posed a barrier to telehealth use across all specialties. Although all medical specialties in the US have been affected by these macro (policy-level) barriers, some specialties have been able to integrate telehealth use into mainstream practice, while others are just gaining momentum with telehealth during COVID-19. Although the temporary removal of policy (coverage) restrictions during the pandemic has accelerated telehealth use, uncertainties remain regarding future telehealth sustainability. Since macro (policy-level) factors by themselves do not serve to explain the variation in telehealth use across specialties, it would be important to examine meso (organizational-level) and micro (individual-level) factors historically influencing telehealth use across specialties, to understand underlying reasons for variation and identify implications for widespread sustainability. This paper draws upon the existing literature to develop a conceptual framework on macro-meso-micro factors influencing telehealth use within a medical specialty. The framework is then used to guide a narrative review of the telehealth literature across six medical specialties, including three specialties with lower telehealth use (allergy-immunology, family medicine, gastroenterology) and three with higher telehealth use (psychiatry, cardiology, radiology) in the US, in order to synthesize themes and gain insights into barriers and facilitators to telehealth use. In doing so, this review addresses a gap in the literature and provides a foundation for future research. Importantly, it helps to identify implications for ensuring widespread sustainability of telehealth use in the post-pandemic future.