Category / Research Integritiy

Bringing FUSION to Nepal

FUSION abroad 2016We have written in many previous BU blogs about progress of our THET-funded project in southern Nepal (e.g. here AND here ). Today’s blog reflects on the use on BU’s unique FUSION approach in our project ‘Mental Health Training for Maternity Care Providers in Nepal‘.

DSC_0151Our BU-led project brings highly experienced health professionals, such as midwives, health visitors or mental health nurses, to Nepal to work as volunteer trainers. The training is aimed at community-based maternity care practitioners and addresses key mental health issues relevant to pregnancy and for new mothers and offers the required communication skills. These health professionals will bring their experience as health care providers as well as trainers in the field of mental health and maternity care/midwifery, mental ill-health prevention and health promotion. They volunteer for two to three weeks at a time to design and deliver training in southern Nepal.

logo THETThe Centre for Midwifery & Maternal Health (CMMPH) collaborates in this project with Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), the Department of Health, and Physical & Population Education at Nepal’s oldest university Tribhuvan University’s (TU). The project is supported in the field by a local charity called Green Tara Nepal. Our project is part of the Health Partnership such as Nepal. HPS itself is funded by the UK Department for International Development and managed by THET (Tropical and Health Education Trust).

Fusion Diagram Our maternal mental health project is a good example of BU’s FUSION approach as it combines EDUCATION (through the training of Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives in Nepal) by UK volunteers (representing PRACTICE) through an intervention which is properly evaluated (representing RESEARCH) is a perfect example of BU’s FUSION in action. Moreover, the project will be partly evaluated by FHSS’s Preeti Mahato as part of her PhD thesis research. This PhD project is supervised by Dr. Catherine Angell (CEL & CMMPH), BU Visiting Professor Padam Simkhada (based at LJMU) and CMMPH’s Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen.BU’s focus on the FUSION of research, education and professional practice is a unique variant of the way UK universities (and many abroad) blend academic teaching, research and scholarship. FUSION is a key concept derived from BU’s strategic Vision & Values).

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Why editorials?

Zika editorial 2016BU academics are editors on a wide range of scientific journals.  As editors we often write editorials for academic journals which have a number of specific functions.  It is a key means of communication between the editor(s) and the journal’s readership.  It is also vehicle to highlight topical academic and political issues related to the journal and the discipline(s) it represents. JAM June 2016 editorial

Earlier this week the latest issue of the Journal of Asian Midwives came out with an editorial which is an illustration of the first point giving information to the readers [1].  The topics addressed in this editorial included the announcement that this new journal was now indexed in the CINAHL Database, a recent major international conference in the field and a call for the forthcoming 2017 ICM (Internation Confederation of Midwives) tri-annual conference.  Today saw the publication of an editorial on the Zika virus and its potential impact in Nepal in the journal Medical Science [2].   This guest editorial co-written by BU’s Visiting Faculties Dr. Brijesh Sathian and Prof. Padam Simkhada with Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health) calls for action in Nepal.  A country where malaria is endemic. The Zika virus uses mosquitoes like the ones spreading Dengue fever and malaria.  Zika is a virus we do not wish to see spreading in countries where malaria is already rife.  The editorial warns that precautionary measures are needed to prevent a Zika outbreak as the spread of the virus to the country seems inevitable, the only uncertainty is when it will be arriving.

Both journals are Open Access which means these editorials can be read by anybody with internet access free of charge.

References:

  1. Jan, R., van Teijlingen, E. (2016) Editorial JAM June 2016, Journal of Asian Midwives 3(1):1. http://ecommons.aku.edu/jam/vol3/iss1/1/
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Sathian, B., & Simkhada, P. (2016). Zika & Nepal: a far greater risk for its population than to individuals. Medical Science 4(2): 312-313. http://www.pubmedhouse.com/journals/ms/articles/1064/PMHID1064.pdf

 

Announcement BU Humanisation Conference 2016

BU Humanisation Conference     21st June 2016

Venue: Room EB708, Executive Business Centre, 89 Holdenhurst Road, BH8 8EB

 

Please find the Programme for the Humanisation conference on the 21st June 2016 attached.

Please feel free to pass the information on to others internal and external to the university (academic and practice) who you feel may be interested

The conference is being run at no cost and so you need to make your own arrangements for lunch.  Let Dr. Caroline Ellis-Hill  ( cehill@bournemouth.ac.uk ) know by the 15th June if you wish to attend .

If you only want to attend for part of the day, please state which part of the day you’d like to attend.

 

9.30 Registration  
10.00 Dr Caroline Ellis-Hill Welcome
10.10 Anne Quinney Humanisation of the BU Generic Student Assessment Criteria.
10.30 Dr Sean Beer Perceptions of the authenticity of food: a study of residents in Dorset (UK)
10.50 Prof Ann Hemingway Innovative routes to Wellbeing: Equine Assisted interventions
11.10 Coffee  
11.30 Jane Fry Sharing human concerns: utilising an embodied interpretative approach to convey findings from a descriptive phenomenological study
11.50 Dr Carole Pound Humanising care: translating theory into practice in stroke care
12.10 Rutherford and Dr. Emer Forde The Rutherford Introspective Photography: Promoting self-reflection and wellbeing of GP trainees through photography.
12.30 Free time   Please see information about local venues for lunch
2.00 Dr Vanessa Heaslip How phenomenology enables insight into the Human lives of Gypsy Roma Travellers’
2.20 Mevalyn Cross Experiencing the Humanisation Framework together
2.40 Dr Jan Mosja Chaplaincy at the bedside. Learning from Buddhist chaplains and their contributions to the humanisation of health care.
3.00 Sally Lee Humanising and the Care Act well-being principle
3.20 Dr Mary Grant and Dr Catherine Lamont Robinson HeART of Stroke: feasibility study of an Art & Health intervention following a stroke
3.40 Thanks, Tea and Close  

 

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity provides a comprehensive national framework for good research conduct and its governance. It outlines five commitments which the University must be compliant with as recipients of HEFCE funding.

HEFCE’s letter to all the heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutions explains the requirement for institutions to comply with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. It sets out HEFCE’s view of compliance with the Concordat, and provides advice for institutions on finding further information. The five commitments are:

  1. Maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research;
  2. Ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards;
  3. Support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers;
  4. Use transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise;
  5. Work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review process regularly and openly.

Each commitment outlines the responsibilities of the researcher, the employers of researchers and the funders of research.

Bournemouth University is committed to ensuring that the research conducted at the Univeristy follows appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks and obligations.

A link to the Concordat can be found here:

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2012/TheConcordatToSupportResearchIntegrity.pdf

Seminar, Prof Edwin van Teijlingen, ‘Maternal Mortality in Nepal’, Wed 20th April, Royal London House, R303, 13:00-13:50.

Maternal Mortality in Nepal
Abstract: The session links various social and political factors that affect maternal mortality. Women dying in pregnancy and childbirth is very much a problem of and in low-income countries. This talk focuses on Nepal, one of the poorer countries of the world, to highlight a range of maternal health issues and wider influencing factors including globalisation and the influence of global organisations such as the World Health Organisation.

For further information regarding the Social Science seminar series, get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (mfathi@boutnemouth.ac.uk).

Pritchard & Harding paper cited in top journal, but there’s a ‘but…’

cloudAs an ECR I am delighted to see that a research paper that Prof. Pritchard and myself wrote in 2014 has been cited in one of the most well regarded journals in the field.

Our paper on the occupational backgrounds of Non-executive directors at NHS acute trusts, published in the Journal for the Royal Society of Medicine Open, was also the subject of an article in the now defunct Independent  newspaper and a post on this blog in May 2014.

Last year, in 2015, it was cited by a paper published in the Journal for Health Services Research and Policy. I won’t name which edition or paper because there is a ‘but…’, and it concerns the carelessness of the authors who cited our work.

There is a ‘but…’ because the authors got my name wrong – both in the in text citation and in the bibliography. The good news is that it still links on citation tracking systems (such as the function on Google Scholar) as a paper that I co-wrote. Yet as an ECR, who is trying to make his way in the ‘publish or perish’ world of academia, I can’t help but feel a bit frustrated. Here’s my name in a top journal, but it’s incorrect.

So I took action, I emailed the editors. To their credit I got a response within minutes, with an apology for the carelessness of the authors and that contact with the publisher had been initiated to see if it could be corrected. Yet, due to the inflexibility of doi, apparently this is unlikely.

This then got me thinking about my first publication. I have to admit I did not check the final galley proof thoroughly enough. Indeed, when it was published, it became apparent that I had not corrected some basic incorrect spelling of names in the bibliography. In other words, some very respected authors’ names were wrong! I can happily report that this was corrected, and no offence caused (I hope!).

But the lesson here – check final galley proofs. If you cite an article, I think the very least you can do, out of respect for colleagues, is to get the authors name right. I have made this mistake, and so have authors who have cited me, so it would scream hypocrisy if I was too mad! But it does show that it might be a relatively common problem, so again – check final galley proofs!

However, once the relative pain bypassed, one our papers has still been cited in a top journal – and that is very satisfying indeed.

 

Concordat on Open Research Data

open dataAs mentioned by Emily in her August HE Policy post, a draft concordat has been published which seeks to make research data in the UK more openly accessible for use.

The concordat has been drafted under the auspices of the UK Open Research Data Forum [Note 1] by a multi-stakeholder working group, which includes HEFCE, Research Councils UK (RCUK), Jisc, the Wellcome Trust and Universities UK.  It aims to help ensure that the research data gathered and generated by members of the UK research community is made openly available for use by others wherever possible, in a manner consistent with relevant legal, ethical and regulatory frameworks and norms.

The concordat aims to establish a set of expectations of good practice, with the intention of making open research data the standard for publicly funded research over the long term.  It recognises the different responsibilities of researchers, their employers and the funders of research, although the intention is not to mandate, codify or require specific activities.

The full draft concordat can be found here – http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/opendata/

Key principals are outlined below:

Definition of Research Data used:

“Research Data are quantitative information or qualitative statements collected by researchers in the course of their work by experimentation, observation, interview or other methods. Data may be raw or primary (e.g. direct from measurement or collection) or derived from primary data for subsequent analysis or interpretation (e.g. cleaned up or as an extract from a larger data set). The purpose of open research data is to provide the information necessary to support or validate a research project’s observations, findings or outputs. Data may include, for example, statistics, collections of digital images, sound recordings, transcripts of interviews, survey data and fieldwork observations with appropriate annotations.”

Principle #1

Open access to research data is an enabler of high quality research, a facilitator of innovation and safeguards good research practice.

Principle #2

Good data management is fundamental to all stages of the research process and should be established at the outset.

Principle #3

Data must be curated so that they are accessible, discoverable and useable.

Principle #4

Open access to research data carries a significant cost, which should be respected by all parties.

Principle #5

There are sound reasons why the openness of research data may need to be restricted but any restrictions must be justified and justifiable.

Principle #6

The right of the creators of research data to reasonable first use is recognised.

Principle #7

Use of others’ data should always conform to legal, ethical and regulatory frameworks including appropriate acknowledgement.

Principle #8

Data supporting publications should be accessible by the publication date and should be in a citeable form.

Principle #9

Support for the development of appropriate data skills is recognised as a responsibility for all stakeholders.

Principle #10

Regular reviews of progress towards open access to research data should be undertaken.

Research ethics updated forms

ethicsNew academic year, New forms!

New versions of the ethics forms available now, have a look at the research ethics page for the full details, under useful documents.

The new forms are the Participant Info Sheet and the previously titled Consent form, now titled Participant Agreement Form.

Please make sure you start using the new versions from now on, and please do let us know how you find them.

BU Ethics team

Paper by BU academics used as example in Dutch university newsletter

The March 2015 newsletter of the Dutch University of Groningen’s School for Behavioural & Cognitive Neurosciences dedicated two pages to the question: ‘How to pick the right journal?’    The author of the English-language newsletter contribution, Liwen Zhang, offer its readers a brief introduction on journal selection for a scientific manuscript.  The newsletter piece is based on two papers which both share their submission stories and suggestions of journal selection.  We were pleased to see that one of these two papers is by two Bournemouth University professors: Hundley and van Teijlingen.  Their paper which gives advice on one specific aspect of academic publishing is called ‘Getting your paper to the right journal: a case study of an academic paper’ [1].  It was published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing in 2002.

 

 

Reference:

  1.  vanTeijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2002) Getting your paper to the right journal: a case study of an academic paper, Journal of Advanced Nursing 37(6): 506-511.

We regret to inform you ….

It is always disappointing for an academic author to receive a rejection letter.   Today I received yet another one from Midwifery (published by Elsevier).   Sometimes I think academic publishing in good journal is not getting any easier over time.  Neither does the experience of having  over two hundred peer-reviewed academic papers make a rejection easier to deal with.  This was my third paper in a row that got rejected by Midwifery.  All three papers were rejected on resubmission, so a lot of extra work had gone into these papers after the initial peer review and the editor’s feedback.  These three papers where led by three different postgraduate students (Sharma, Baral & Burton) as first authors, and in each case co-authored by myself and different BU academics and/or from other universities.

Midwifery is the journal in which I have published more papers than any other journal (see top blue piece of pie in ‘Documents by source’) as reported on SCOPUS today (26 April 2015).  Moreover, I am co-author of one of the top five most downloaded papers in Midwifery for 2014 (see recent BU Research Blog), and this paper is also the most cited Midwifery paper since 2010!   Still I manage to have three papers rejected in a row.

What is does show to me is that the journal’s peer review system is robust (i.e. blind and impartial) because I am also a member of Midwifery’s editorial committee.  I think it is back to the drawing board and discuss with each set of authors what the next step should be for our papers.  To be fair we had a paper published already this year in Midwifery, namely:  Grylka-Baeschlin, S., van Teijlingen, E.R., Stoll, K., Gross, M.M. (2015) Translation and validation of the German version of the Mother-Generated Index and its application during the postnatal period. Midwifery 31(1): 47–53.

As an editorial board we try continuously to maintain a high quality of papers to be published in our journal, and we would like to encourage potential authors to keep submitting their papers to Midwifery.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH