User experience of wearing comfort of reusable versus disposable surgical gowns and environmental perspectives: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the user experience of wearing comfort of reusable sterile surgical gowns and compare these gowns with conventional disposable surgical gowns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: An academic hospital in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Gynaecologists, surgeons, residents and operating room assistants (n=80). METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained via a written questionnaire. Participants provided subjective comments and scored the reusable gown on each individual topic with a score from 1 to 5 (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = moderate, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent) and compared the reusable gown with the conventional disposable alternative (better, equal or worse). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wearing comfort: ventilation and temperature regulation, fit and length, functionality, barrier function and ease of use. RESULTS: The results of the overall scores of the reusable gown are scored as 'very good' (mean 4.3, SD ± 0.5) by its users. Regarding comparison of the gowns, more than 79% (lowest score 79%, highest score 95%) of the participants scored the reusable gown equal or higher on six of seven topics. The topic 'ease of use' was scored equal or higher by 59% of the participants. Subjective comments provided information on possible improvements. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study demonstrate that there is professional acceptance regarding the utilisation of reusable surgical gowns. To facilitate broader adoption, it is imperative to foster collaboration among suppliers and healthcare institutions. The reusable surgical gown is an environmentally sustainable, safe and comfortable alternative in the operating room.

Factorial invariance and stability of the Effort-Reward Imbalance Scales: a longitudinal analysis of two samples with different time lags.

BACKGROUND: Key measures of Siegrist's (1996) Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) Model (i.e., efforts, rewards, and overcommitment) were psychometrically tested. PURPOSE: To study change in organizational interventions, knowledge about the type of change underlying the instruments used is needed. Next to assessing baseline factorial validity and reliability, the factorial stability over time - known as alpha-beta-gamma change - of the ERI scales was examined. METHODS: Psychometrics were tested among 383 and 267 healthcare workers from two Dutch panel surveys with different time lags. RESULTS: Baseline results favored a five-factor model (i.e., efforts, esteem rewards, financial/career-related aspects, job security, and overcommitment) over and above a three-factor solution (i.e., efforts, composite rewards, and overcommitment). Considering changes as a whole, particularly the factor loadings of the three ERI scales were not equal over time. Findings suggest in general that moderate changes in the ERI factor structure did not affect the interpretation of mean changes over time. CONCLUSION: Occupational health researchers utilizing the ERI scales can feel confident that self-reported changes are more likely to be due to factors other than structural change of the ERI scales over time, which has important implications for evaluating job stress and health interventions.