Publications

BACKGROUND: The WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) has been implemented in diverse settings to improve the quality and safety of intrapartum care, but implementation strategies and their relationship with adoption and fidelity remain heterogeneous and incompletely described.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the landscape of SCC implementation, map the implementation strategies used and explore how these strategies were reported in relation to adoption and fidelity.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting SCC implementation in healthcare settings that described at least one implementation strategy, with no restrictions on country or language. Studies that did not report implementation strategies or did not involve SCC use in real-world care settings were excluded.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health and Global Index Medicus (June 2024), screened reference lists and consulted grey literature for the period 2009-2024.

CHARTING METHODS: This scoping review followed JBI methodology (Peters et al) and was reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We extracted study characteristics and implementation findings, coded strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy and grouped them by clusters. Adoption (initial uptake) and fidelity (adherence to core components) were categorised following Proctor's implementation outcomes. We created a descriptive implementation intensity score and conducted exploratory analyses (tertiles, boxplot).

RESULTS: 34 studies described 19 SCC implementation projects across 16 countries. We identified 24 distinct ERIC strategies, with most projects using 5-11 strategies. Frequently reported strategies included educational meetings, audit and feedback, supervision, contextual adaptation and leadership or champions. Exploratory analyses did not show consistent associations between implementation intensity and adoption or fidelity. 'Change infrastructure' strategies (such as record system or equipment changes) were variably defined and warrant cautious interpretation. Adaptations (eg, translation and alignment with national guidelines) were common and aimed at improving local fit, but heterogeneous reporting limited cross-study comparability.

CONCLUSIONS: SCC implementation has relied on diverse, multicomponent strategies, yet reporting-especially of strategy content and adaptations-remains insufficient, constraining comparison and synthesis across settings. As a pragmatic bundle, implementers may prioritise brief team training, unit-level champions and leadership signals, point-of-care audit and feedback, light-touch SCC adaptation that preserves core content and structured supervision or peer coaching, combined with systematic inclusion of women and families through codesign and companion-mediated prompting. Using theory-informed frameworks (such as Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR]) and standardised reporting tools (eg, Proctor's outcomes; Template for Intervention Description and Replication / Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies [TIDieR/StaRI]) can make SCC implementation strategies more transparent, comparable and scalable.

REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RWY27.

PURPOSE: Medical educators have increasingly focused on the systemic effects of racism on health inequities in the United States (U.S.) and globally. There is a call for educators to teach students how to actively promote an anti-racist culture in healthcare. This scoping review assesses the existing undergraduate medical education (UME) literature of anti-racism curricula, implementation, and assessment.

METHODS: The Ovid, Embase, ERIC, Web of Science, and MedEdPORTAL databases were queried on 7 April 2023. Keywords included anti-racism, medical education, and assessment. Inclusion criteria consisted of any UME anti-racism publication. Non-English articles with no UME anti-racism curriculum were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, followed by full-text appraisal. Data was extracted using a predetermined framework based on Kirkpatrick's educational outcomes model, Miller's pyramid for assessing clinical competence, and Sotto-Santiago's theoretical framework for anti-racism curricula. Study characteristics and anti-racism curriculum components (instructional design, assessment, outcomes) were collected and synthesized.

RESULTS: In total, 1064 articles were screened. Of these, 20 met the inclusion criteria, with 90% (n = 18) published in the past five years. Learners ranged from first-year to fourth-year medical students. Study designs included pre- and post-test evaluations (n = 10; 50%), post-test evaluations only (n = 7; 35%), and qualitative assessments (n = 3; 15%). Educational interventions included lectures (n = 10, 50%), multimedia (n = 6, 30%), small-group case discussions (n = 15, 75%), large-group discussions (n = 5, 25%), and reflections (n = 5, 25%). Evaluation tools for these curricula included surveys (n = 18; 90%), focus groups (n = 4; 20%), and direct observations (n = 1; 5%).

CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review highlights the growing attention to anti-racism in UME curricula. We identified a gap in published assessments of behavior change in applying knowledge and skills to anti-racist action in UME training. We also provide considerations for developing UME anti-racism curricula. These include explicitly naming and defining anti-racism as well as incorporating longitudinal learning opportunities and assessments.

IMPORTANCE: Despite the importance of patient trust in health care, there are no patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for trust in their clinician that have been developed empirically in Spanish, which is the second most common language in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a Spanish-language PROM for trust in pregnancy care clinician.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used a national online panel of patients who reported a Spanish language preference and had limited English proficiency and were currently pregnant or had given birth within the 12 months before the survey. Participants resided in the United States, and data were collected from January to May 2024.

EXPOSURES: Participants had clinical interactions during pregnancy and/or postpartum care. Data collected included demographics, Confianza (Trust) Scale candidate items, and 4 measures for concurrent validity evidence: the Trust in Physician Scale (TPS), the Mothers on Respect Index, the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were psychometric properties of the Confianza scale and its association with validated scales (validity coefficients). Item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the candidate items, select the best item subset for the Confianza scale, examine its correlation with other measures, and compare scores according to demographic characteristics.

RESULTS: Of the included 204 participants (mean [SD] age, 26 [7] years; 62 participants from South America [30%]; 32 participants from Mexico [16%]), 117 participants were pregnant (57%), and 87 were within 1-year post partum (43%) at the time of survey completion. Four items were removed based on exploratory factor analysis. Using results from IRT analysis on the remaining 12 items, 5 items were selected to represent communication, caring, competency, accompaniment, and overall trust for the final measure. The 5-item Confianza scale had high measurement precision, with reliability above 0.90 across a wide range of the trust continuum. The Confianza scale (mean [SD] score, 21.5 [4.6] out of 25) was positively correlated with the TPS (r = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.57; P < .001) and negatively correlated with the EPDS (r = -0.41; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.29; P <.001). Higher trust scores were obtained when there was language concordance with clinicians (mean [SD], 23.6 [2.3] vs 20.0 [5.3]; P < .001) and care continuity (mean [SD], 22.3 [3.8] vs 20.9 [5.3]; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of pregnant and postpartum Spanish-speaking individuals, a Spanish-language PROM for trust in pregnancy care clinician had initial validity.

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients in quality improvement and innovation projects is increasingly important, yet challenges persist with involving patients who speak languages other than English. This article presents design activities our team used to engage Spanish-speaking patients and cultural brokers.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinician communication tool to enhance patient trust in pregnancy care clinicians, especially among minoritized populations who face language and cultural barriers, using human-centered design (HCD).

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT AND INNOVATION: We centered end-user experiences, including clinicians, Spanish-speaking patients, and Spanish-speaking cultural brokers, in our design process through multiple feedback sessions and modalities.

METHODS: We used a HCD process to understand the problem, co-design a tool, and prepare for testing of a clinician tool. Design activities included a critical literature review, user interviews, design principles, solution sketching, rapid cycle feedback with subject matter experts, and field experience with pregnancy clinicians.

RESULTS: We innovated on a widely used clinical communication tool, the Four Habits Model, and developed the Five Habits for Pregnancy Care to support pregnancy care clinicians in building trust by bridging cultural and language differences. We added an equity-focused habit "Pause and Reflect" to bookend the Four Habits. We refined the tool to meet different needs across pregnancy care visits based on feedback from 7 clinicians.

DISCUSSION: We applied equity principles in a HCD process to understand a problem, co-design a tool, and prepare for testing by engaging with patients and cultural brokers in Spanish. Balancing the differing approaches for designers and researchers yielded important insights for enhancing equitable processes and outcomes in healthcare improvement.

PRACTICAL VALUE: Communication tools designed with and for minoritized populations are critical for improving trust in all patient-clinician dyads during pregnancy care.

BACKGROUND: Undocumented immigrants face many barriers in accessing pregnancy care, including language differences, implicit and explicit bias, limited or no insurance coverage, and fear about accessing services. With the national spotlight on maternal health inequities, the current literature on undocumented immigrants during pregnancy requires synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the literature on pregnancy care utilization, experiences, and outcomes of undocumented individuals in the United States.

METHODS: We performed a scoping review of original research studies in the United States that described the undocumented population specifically and examined pregnancy care utilization, experiences, and outcomes. Studies underwent title, abstract, and full-text review by two investigators. Data were extracted and synthesized using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS: A total of 5,940 articles were retrieved and 3,949 remained after de-duplication. After two investigators screened and reviewed the articles, 29 studies met inclusion criteria. The definition of undocumented individuals varied widely across studies. Of the 29 articles, 24 showed that undocumented status and anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric are associated with lower care utilization and worse pregnancy outcomes, while inclusive health care and immigration policies are associated with higher levels of prenatal and postnatal care utilization as well as better pregnancy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: The small, heterogeneous literature on undocumented immigrants and pregnancy care is fraught with inconsistent definitions, precluding comparisons across studies. Despite areas in need of further research, the signal among published studies is that undocumented individuals experience variable access to pregnancy care, heightened fear and stress regarding their status during pregnancy, and worse outcomes compared with other groups, including documented immigrants

Insurance coverage for prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and postpartum care for undocumented immigrants consists of a patchwork of state and federal policies, which varies widely by state. According to federal law, states must provide coverage for labor and delivery through Emergency Medicaid. Various states have additional prenatal and postpartum coverage for undocumented immigrants through policy mechanisms such as the Children's Health Insurance Program's "unborn child" option, expansion of Medicaid, and independent state-level mechanisms. Using a search of state Medicaid and federal government websites, we found that 27 states and the District of Columbia provide additional coverage for prenatal care, postpartum care, or both, while 23 states do not. Twelve states include any postpartum coverage; 7 provide coverage for 12 months postpartum. Although information regarding coverage is available publicly online, there exist many barriers to access, such as lack of transparency, lack of availability of information in multiple languages, and incorrect information. More inclusive and easily accessible policies are needed as the first step toward improving maternal health among undocumented immigrants, a population trapped in a complicated web of immigration policy and a maternal health crisis. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1051-1060. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307750).

OBJECTIVE: To measure what patients with Spanish language preference and limited English proficiency value most when selecting a prenatal care clinician.

METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered at two large academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were identified by electronic medical record, had preferred Spanish language and self-identified limited English proficiency, and either were pregnant with a completed fetal anatomy scan or had given birth within the past 12 months at the time of the study. The discrete choice experiment consisted of eight attributes to consider when selecting a prenatal care clinician: clinician Spanish proficiency, type of interpreter used, interpersonal dynamics (ie, making patients feel seen, heard, and cared for), cultural concordance, continuity of care, shared decision making, distance from home, and wait times for appointments. Descriptive statistics of demographic variables were calculated. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to analyze discrete choice experiment data.

RESULTS: The attributes that were most important to 166 participants when choosing their prenatal care clinician were interpersonal dynamics within the patient-clinician dyad and clinician Spanish language proficiency (average importance 21.4/100 and 20.8/100, respectively). Of lowest importance were wait time to receive an appointment and continuity of care (average importance 5.1 and 6.1, respectively). Although participants highly preferred that their clinician be "fluent or near fluent in Spanish," the second most preferred option was having a clinician with only basic Spanish proficiency rather than a more advanced level of Spanish proficiency with some misunderstandings.

CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the importance of positive clinician-patient interpersonal dynamics and language-concordant care for patients with Spanish language preference in prenatal care. Promoting equitable patient-centered care for patients with limited English proficiency requires responding to preferences regarding clinician language proficiency and demonstrating attentiveness, empathy, and concern for prenatal care experiences.

There is growing evidence that language discordance between patients and their health care teams negatively affects quality of care, experience of care, and health outcomes, yet there is limited guidance on best practices for advancing equitable care for patients who have language barriers within obstetrics and gynecology. In this commentary, we present two cases of language-discordant care and a framework for addressing language as a critical lens for health inequities in obstetrics and gynecology, which includes a variety of clinical settings such as labor and delivery, perioperative care, outpatient clinics, and inpatient services, as well as sensitivity around reproductive health topics. The proposed framework explores drivers of language-related inequities at the clinician, health system, and societal level. We end with actionable recommendations for enhancing equitable care for patients experiencing language barriers. Because language and communication barriers undergird other structural drivers of inequities in reproductive health outcomes, we urge obstetrician-gynecologists to prioritize improving care for patients experiencing language barriers.

People who speak languages other than English face structural barriers in accessing the US healthcare system. With a growing number of people living in countries other than their countries of birth, the impact of language and cultural differences between patients and care teams on quality care is global. Cultural brokering presents a unique opportunity to enhance communication and trust between patients and clinicians from different cultural backgrounds during pregnancy care-a critical window for engaging families in the healthcare system. This critical review aims to synthesize literature describing cultural brokering in pregnancy care. We searched keywords relating to cultural brokering, pregnancy, and language in PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL and traced references of screened articles. Our search identified 33 articles. We found that cultural brokering is not clearly defined in the current literature. Few of the articles provided information about language concordance between cultural brokers and patients or clinicians. No article described the impact of cultural brokering on health outcomes. Facilitators of cultural brokering included: interprofessional collaboration within the care team, feeling a family connection between the cultural broker and patients, and cultivating trust between the cultural broker and clinicians. Barriers to cultural brokering included: misunderstanding the responsibilities, difficulty maintaining personal boundaries, and limited availability and accessibility of cultural brokers. We propose cultural brokering as interactions that cover four key aims: (1) language support; (2) bridging cultural differences; (3) social support and advocacy; and (4) navigation of the healthcare system. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers should develop consistent language around cultural brokering in pregnancy care and examine the impact of cultural brokers on health outcomes.