Tagged / collaborative research

New maternity research paper on Nepal

Congratulations to Preeti Mahato, PhD student in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health, on the publication of her latest paper ‘Factors related to choice of place of birth in a district in Nepal’ in the Elsevier journal Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare  [1].  The paper based on her research work in Nawalparasi, southern Nepal.  This new paper is the third paper form Preeti’s PhD work [2-3].

 

Reference:

  1. Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Sheppard, Z., Silwal, R.C. (2017)  Factors related to choice of place of birth in a district in Nepal, Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 13 : 91-96.
  2. Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Angell, C. (2016) Birthing centres in Nepal: Recent developments, obstacles and opportunities, Journal of Asian Midwives 3(1): 18-30. http://ecommons.aku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=jam
  3. Mahato, P.K., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Angell, C., Sathian, B. (2015) Birthing centre infrastructure in Nepal post 2015 earthquake. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 5(4): 518-519. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/14260/11579

New publication on Community Hospitals

The Health Services Journal published a commentary this week on Community Hospitals [1].  This online article is written by Dr. Emma Pitchforth who is based at RAND Europe in Cambridge (& BU Visiting Faculty), Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (Faculty of Health & Social Sciences) and Dr. Ellen Nolte based at the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies

The authors highlight the recently completed NIHR study on Community Hospitals [2].  The notion of a Community Hospital in the UK is evolving from the traditional model of a local hospital staffed by general practitioners and nurses and serving mainly rural populations. Along with the diversification of models, there is a renewed policy interest in community hospitals and their potential to deliver integrated care. However, there is a need to better understand the role of different models of community hospitals within the wider health economy and an opportunity to learn from experiences of other countries to inform this potential.

With ease of access and a sense of homeliness, there is potential for Community Hospitals to be better integrated into NHS in England.  The authors suggest that a more strategic role for ‘traditional’ Community Hospitals might be timely within the NHS in England.  They further conclude that if challenges around Community Hospitals are addressed and their within the English health system is properly defined, they could provide positive benefits to the health service. It seems that, if done correctly, Community Hospitals could be a traditional solution to help address some of the modern day challenges of the NHS.The full NIHR report is Open Access and can be found here!

Last year the research team had already published a scoping review article from the NIHR study [3].

 

 

References:

  1. Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen, E., Nolte, E. (2017) Community hospitals: a traditional solution to help today’s NHS? Health Services Journal (11 July) https://www.hsj.co.uk/community-services/community-hospitals-a-traditional-solution-to-help-todays-nhs/7020019.article#/scientific-summary
  2. Pitchforth, E., Nolte, E., Corbett, J., Miani., C, Winpenny., E, van Teijlingen, E., Elmore, N,, King, S,, Ball, S,, Miler, J,, Ling, T. (2017) Community hospitals and their services in the NHS: identifying transferable learning from international developments – scoping review, systematic review, country reports and case studies Health Services & Delivery Research 5(19): 1-248.
  3. Wimpenny, E.M., Corbett, J., Miami, C., King, S., Pitchforth, E., Ling, T., van Teijlingen, E. Nolte, E. (2016) Community hospitals in selected high income countries: a scoping review of approaches and models. International Journal of Integrated Care 16(4): 13 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2463

 

“New” FHSS paper on obesity published July 2017


The American Journal of Men’s Health published our latest paper on obesity prevention in men.  The paper ‘Clinical Effectiveness of Weight Loss and Weight Maintenance Interventions for Men: A Systematic Review of Men-Only Randomized Controlled Trials (The ROMEO Project)’ originates from a collaboration between BU and various universities in Scotland, led by the University of Aberdeen [1].

This systematic review paper found that reducing diets produced better weight loss than physical activity alone. The most effective interventions combined reducing diets, exercise, and behaviour change techniques . Group interventions produced favourable weight loss results. The paper reports that once engaged, men remained committed to a weight loss intervention.

The paper concludes that weight loss for men is best achieved and maintained with the combination of a reducing diet, increased physical activity, and behaviour change techniques. Strategies to increase engagement of men with weight loss services to improve the reach of interventions are needed.  This paper is the thirteenth paper from a large NIHR grant [2-13].

The American Journal of Men’s Health is an open access, peer-reviewed resource for cutting-edge information regarding men’s health and illness. It is, however worth noting that although our paper is formally published in July 2017 it has been online for two years!  The journal’s website states clearly that the article was first published online on June 30, 2015 BUT the issue in which it appears is published is July 1, 2017!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

Reference:

  1. Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2017) Clinical effectiveness of weight loss & weight maintenance interventions for men: a systematic review of men-only randomised controlled trials (ROMEO Project), American Journal of Men’s Health 11(4): 1096-1123.  http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1557988315587550
  2. Robertson, C, Archibald, D, Avenell, A, Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen E, Boyers, D., Stewart, F, Boachie, C, Fioratou E., Wilkins, D, Street, T., Carroll, P., Fowler, C. (2014) Systematic reviews of & integrated report on quantitative, qualitative & economic evidence base for the management of obesity in men. Health Technology Assessment 18(35): 1-424. http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/118180/FullReport-hta18350.pdf
  3. Stewart, F., Fraser, C., Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2014) Are men difficult to find? Identifying male-specific studies in MEDLINE and Embase, Systematics Reviews 3,78.
  4. Archibald, D, Douglas, F, Hoddinott, P, van Teijlingen, E, Stewart, F., Robertson, C., Boyers, D., Avenell, A. (2015) A qualitative evidence synthesis on management of male obesity. BMJ Open 5: e008372. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008372 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/10/e008372.full.pdf+html
  5. Boyers, D, Stewart, F, Fraser, C, Robertson, C, Avenell, A, Archibald, D, Douglas, F, Hoddinott P, van Teijlingen E. (2015). A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical obesity interventions in men, Obesity Research & Clinical Practice 9(4), 310-327.
  6. Robertson, C, Avenell, A, Boachie, C., Stewart, F., Archibald D., Hoddinott, P, Douglas, F, van Teijlingen E, Boyers D. (2016) Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? Systematic review of long-term RCTs presenting data for men & women: The ROMEO Project, Obesity Research & Clinical Practice 10: 70-84.
  7. Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Boachie, C., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2015) Should weight loss programmes be designed differently for men and women? The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 374.
  8. Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2015) A systematic review of long-term weight management randomized controlled trials for obese men. The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 374.
  9. Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2015) A systematic review of weight loss interventions in the UK. The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 375.
  10. Boyers, D., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Robertson, C., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., (2015) A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical obesity interventions in men, Appetite 87: 375.
  11. Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Robertson, C., (2015) A qualitative evidence synthesis on the management of male obesity. The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 381.
  12. Avenell, A., Robertson, C., Boachie, C., Stewart, F Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2016) Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analyses BMJ 355:i5826 http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5826/rapid-responses
  13. Avenell, A., Robertson, C., Stewart, F., Boyers, D., Douglas, F., Archibald, D., van Teijlingen, E., Hoddinott, P., Boachie, C. (2016) Sex can affect participation, engagement, and adherence in trials, BMJ 355:i6754 http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/355/bmj.i6754.full.pdf

New BU publication: Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research &Education

Congratulations to Dr. Sam Rowlands, Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, who published an interesting Commentary in the BJOG together with Prof. Roger Ingham from the University of Southampton.  Their paper ‘Long-acting reversible contraception: conflicting perspectives of advocates and potential users’ argues that a patient-centred approach to contraceptive care is fundamental to women’s autonomy.  The authors remind the readers that it needs to be appreciated that unintended pregnancy is most likely to be reduced by fulfilling the unmet need for contraception and encouraging those not using any form of contraception, or  condoms only, to use a method of their choice accompanied by adequate instruction (where necessary) in correct usage.

 

New BU publication in Public Health

This week the Oxford Encyclopaedia published our contribution on religious organisations and health promotion [1].  The paper in question ‘Faith Communities and the Potential for Health Promotion’ is co-authored by scholars based in England, Scotland and Canada. This new publication is part of a growing number of publications at Bournemouth University on the contribution of faith communities to public health.

Faith communities often have multiple resources, existing networks and an infrastructure that can be applied to health promotion programmes for their own membership or as an outreach to the wider community. Health programmes in a faith community in high-income countries may include targeted initiatives, ranging from walking groups or weight checks, health events, or health assessments, to diabetes self-management. These activities can be organised by charities and NHS organisation and held at local churches, synagogues or mosques which is referred to as faith-placed health promotion.  If the health promotion is part of the ministry of the religious organisation it is referred to as faith-based health promotion.

On top of this encyclopaedia entry, the Open Access journal African Health Sciences [Impact Factor 0.66] accepted our paper in the same field a few weeks ago.  This  paper ‘Influence of faith-based organisations on HIV prevention strategies in Africa: a systematic review’ formed part of the first author’s M.Sc. in Public Health [2]. Our previous papers reported on a study of faith-based and faith-placed health promotion in and around Dundee [3-4].

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Prenatal Health

 

References

  1. Kiger, A., Fagan, D., van Teijlingen, E. (2017) Faith Communities and the Potential for Health Promotion. In: Encyclopedia of Health and Risk Message Design & Processing, Parrott, R. (ed.) New York, Oxford University Press. (http://communication.oxfordre.com/).
  2. Ochillo, M., van Teijlingen, E., Hind, M. (2017) Influence of faith-based organisations on HIV prevention strategies in Africa: a systematic review. African Health Sciences (accepted June).
  3. Fagan, D., Kiger, A., van Teijlingen E. (2010) A survey of faith leaders concerning health promotion and the level of healthy living activities occurring in faith communities in Scotland. Global Health Promotion 17(4): 15-23.
  4. Fagan, D., Kiger, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2012) Faith communities and their assets for health promotion: The views from health professionals and faith leaders in Dundee, Scotland, Global Health Promotion 19(2): 27-36.

NIHR Fellowships Session – Resources Available Now

Photo courtesy of Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

As part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, RKEO held a session on NIHR Fellowships on Thursday 25th May. We heard from fantastic speakers including Dawn Biram from the NIHR Trainees Coordinating Centre about the fellowship opportunities available from the NIHR. We also welcomed Professor Jane Sandall CBE, NIHR Senior Investigator and National NIHR lead for Clinical Academic Careers for midwives, who provided an overview of her own career history before describing what interview panel members look for in a candidate. BU’s very own NIHR Career Development Fellow, Dr. Samuel Nyman then rounded the day off with his own experiences of applying for an NIHR Fellowship, and what it’s like to be an NIHR Fellow.

The resources from the session are now available on MyBU. To access them, please logon to the ‘Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework’ community, and under ‘Pathways’ select ‘National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)’.

For further information, please contact Lisa Gale-Andrews, RKEO Research Facilitator.

 

 

Psychology PGR Sarah Hodge presents at two prestigious USA conferences and wins prize

Representing the research team from Bournemouth University, Sarah Hodge presented cross-disciplinary PhD research at two conferences in Las Vegas (April) and Denver (May).

The first conference Broadcast Education Association (BEA) included a symposium organised and attended by key academics in the area of psychology and gaming and within this Sarah won top paper in the symposium track and 2nd place student paper. The research presented was funded by the University Student Research Assistant (SRA) scheme, which involved collaboration between departments and faculties. The research involved creating a game to measure in-game moral decisions. The research team included Jacqui Taylor and John McAlaney from the Department of Psychology, Davide Melacca and Christos Gatzidis from the Department of Creative Technology, and Eike Anderson from the National Centre for Computer Animation.

 

At the second conference Computers in Human Interaction (CHI), Sarah had a workshop paper accepted on Ethical Encounters in Human Computer Interaction and this naturally stimulated many interesting questions about ethics in research. Sarah was a student volunteer at the conference. Sarah was a Chair student Volunteer at British HCI 2016 that was held at Bournemouth University last summer and this experience supported being accepted as a Student Volunteer at CHI. From this experience Sarah was assigned the role of Day Captain, which involved supporting and overseeing the other student volunteers with their duties. Sarah found it to be a great experience and highly recommends other students to consider being a student volunteer as a great chance to network and it also helps with funding conferences as the registration fee was waived.

 

Hodge, S. Taylor, J & McAlaney, J (2017). Restricted Content: Ethical Issues with Researching Minors’ Video Game Habits Human in Computer Interaction (CHI) May, Denver USA

If you would like more information about the research please contact: shodge@bournemouth.ac.uk

Three Sandpits and a Funder

You’ve probably seen on the BU Research Blog, that in RKEO we hold lots of ‘sandpit’ events. If you have ever wondered what a sandpit is, they offer the opportunity to meet new people, and to spend dedicated time developing novel ideas for research projects. They also involve lots of post-it notes, and occasionally some colouring!

We have been very busy this week, with three sandpits taking place across BU.

On Monday, we facilitated a mini-sandpit event for the Department of Creative Technology in the Faculty of Science and Technology. Lively interactions occurred, and interesting ideas were discussed. We look forward to working with the department to develop these ideas.

On Tuesday, we welcomed fantastic speakers from Public Health England, Project Nurture and the Better Care Fund (NHS England), who set the scene for our health & wellbeing sandpit event titled ‘Health & Wellbeing in the 21st Century: Is it your responsibility?’. We had a full house for the day, including attendees from Southampton Solent, the University of Surrey and Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. By the afternoon, the room was buzzing with wonderful ideas including lots of nature themed ideas inspired by Project Nurture’s talk earlier in the day.  We hope to develop these ideas into applications for funding over the coming months.

On Wednesday, the Royal Society came to visit and provided an overview of their strategic priorities and the application process. After their presentation, attendees then engaged in our third and final sandpit of the week on AI and robotics. Vicky Isley and Paul Smith from ‘boredomresearch’ talked about artificial life, artificial intelligence and artificial emotion. They discussed how they plan to introduce emotion in robotics, which set off some interesting discussions on the topic. Some fantastic ideas for research projects were generated, leading to three teams winning grant development funding to support the development of their ideas.

We’ve had a great week meeting lots of different people across BU and beyond, and look forward to seeing even more of you at our sandpit events next academic year! Check back to the BU Research Blog for upcoming opportunities as part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework.

 

Book your place on our AI & Robotics Sandpit: 24/5/17 – 14:30-17:00

A Sandpit focused on “AI & Robotics”  will take place immediately following the Royal Society visit to BU on 24/5/17 – 14:30-17:00. Don’t delay spaces are limited – book in today!

Speakers will include Vicky Isley and Paul Smith (boredomresearch). They will present a new vision for technological innovation, one that embraces emotion in a-life systems and recognises the fragility of their sustaining environment. boredomresearch will discuss their collaboration with the Artificial Life Lab (Karl Franzens University, Graz Austria), who are employing bio-inspired robots to provide solutions operating in human polluted environments.

So, is this just networking?

Definitely not! It is a facilitated session with the primary intention of developing innovative research ideas, which also enables the development of networks. It gives you the opportunity to explore research ideas which you may develop over time, together with the chance to find common ground with academics from across BU and beyond.

Which means…?

We’re seeking to come up with novel research that could part of a proposal to funding streams such as the Royal Society or the Industrial Challenge Fund that will focus on “AI” and/or “Robotics”.

So, who should attend?

We want anyone who thinks they might have something to contribute. We will also be inviting relevant external attendees to contribute to the day.

What do I need to prepare in advance? What will the programme entail?

Absolutely nothing in advance. During the session, you’ll be guided through a process which results in the development of research ideas. The process facilitates creativity, potentially leading to innovative and interdisciplinary research ideas. These ideas will be explored with other attendees, and further developed based on the feedback received.

What if I don’t have time to think about ideas in advance?

You don’t need to do this but it will help. Attendees will come from a range of backgrounds so we expect that there will be lively conversations resulting from these different perspectives.

What about afterwards? Do I need to go away and do loads of work?

Well… that depends! This interactive day will result in some novel research ideas. Some of these may be progressed immediately; others might need more time to develop. You may find common ground with other attendees which you choose to take forward in other ways, such as writing a paper or developing a new placement opportuntity.

What if my topic area is really specific, such as health and AI/Robotics?

Your contribution will be very welcome! One of the main benefits of this type of event is to bring together individuals with a range of backgrounds and specialisms who are able to see things just that bit differently to one another.

 

So, how do I book onto this event?

This event will take place on Wednesday, 24th May 2017. To book, please contact Dianne Goodman by end Wednesday, 10th May 2017 with your Name, Organisation and Research Interest(s).  All spaces will be confirmed by Monday 15th of May 2017.

This event is part of the new Research Knowledge Exchange Development Framework.