Category / Nursing & Midwifery

Media coverage BU’s kidney research in Nepal

This week Bournemouth University organised two dissemination events for our risk of kidney disease study in Nepalese migrant workers in the Middle East and Malaysia.  A previous blog reported on the first event in the capital Kathmandu (see details here!) .  These dissemination events have generated a loads of media coverage in Nepal, both in Nepali and in English. 

The study was led by Bournemouth University and a charity in Nepal which whom we have been collaborating for two decades, called Green Tara Nepal.  This important study, the first of its kind, was conducted among the Nepalese migrant workers and a comparison group of non-migrants from the same community.  This study was funded by The Colt Foundation, based in the UK. In the field it was supported by the Madhes Province Public Health Laboratory, the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration and University College London (UCL).

Dr Pramod Raj Regmi (Principal Academic in International Health in Bournemouth University’s Department of Nursing Sciences) is the lead researcher and our team further comprises researchers Dr Nirmal Aryal and Prof Edwin van Teijlingen (both from BU’s Faculty of Health & Social Sciences), and in Nepal clinicians: Prof Dr Arun Sedhai, Dr Radheshyam KC and Dr Shrawan Kumar Mishra.

 

 

 

Prof Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

Proofreading your article accepted for publication

It is always a pleasure to see your own paper in print.  If all is properly organised at the publisher, the first time you see you paper as it will look in its final version when you receive the proof copy.  It is the authors’ task to proofread this final copy and pick up any mistakes you may have made or the journal has made putting your word file into the journal’s layout.  More and more journals now ask you to do the proofreading and editing online.  The first message here is that proofreading is exact business and most certainly time consuming.  Moreover, feeding back mistakes you may find in the proofs is not without its trials and tribulations.

Yesterday we received the proofs for a paper accepted by BMC Health Research Policy & Systems [1]. The BMC is part of the publisher Springer , and it uses an online proof system eProofing to which the authors get temporary access, to read and correct text.  This system looks good online, but beware the online version you get to edit does not look the same as the version that will appear in print.  The draft print version generated by eProofing has line numbers which don’t appear online when you are editing the proofs.  So we had to write on the online system separately that we found a set of quotes glued together, as the system does not allow authors to change the lay-out (for obvious reasons). In this case,  we had to write details like: “There needs to be a space after first quote line 421.”  What might look okay in the eProofing version didn’t do so  in the print version, where it was it is wrong.  This is illustrated in the example picture below.

 

Last month we battled with the proofs of another BU paper forthcoming in the journal Women and Birth [2], which is part of Elsevier.  Again, it has an online system for proofs.  This system does not allow the authors to correct mistakes in in the line spacing.  So we ended up writing to journal manager, not the editor, things like: “There is a very big gap between the end of section 3.7. and Overview of findings section – please could the text be rearranged to get rid of this big gap.”  We also asked for a summary section to be kept on one page, not having an orphan two words on the next page, but that appeared to be too difficult a request.  We think we a little flexibility, i.e. a human intervention the lay-out could have been improved.  See illustration below with text as it appears in the current online-first version.

We like to stress our advice to set plenty of time aside to read and edit the proofs, and to send details instructions to the journal manager or editor about what needs changing.  Changes include typos, grammar and style, but also lay-out of text and illustrations, boxes in the text, tables and figures.  “It is also important to check tables and figures during the proof-reading as the formatting can often go astray during the typesetting process” as we highlighted by Sheppard and colleagues [3].  Also double check correct spelling of names of co-authors and the final author order in the proofs.  Many years ago, I received the proof of pages of a midwifery article [4].

I dutifully read and edited  the proof of the actual text, but I never check the short introduction with the authors’ names which an editor had added to the final proofs.  When the paper came out in print to transpired that this editor has changed the author order, i.e. my name was first, probably because I had submitted the paper on behalf of my co-author.  This cause some problems with my co-author, made all the worse since I am married to her.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

References:

  1. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Rushton, S., Subedi, M., Simkhada, P., Balen, J., Nepal Federalisation of Health Team (2023)  Overcoming the challenges facing Nepal’s health system during federalisation: an analysis of health system building blocks. Journal of the Health Research Policy & Systems. (forthcoming).
  2. Arnold, R., Way, S., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) “I might have cried in the changing room, but I still went to work”. Maternity staff managing roles, responsibilities, and emotions of work and home during COVID-19: an Appreciative InquiryWomen & Birth (online first) 
  3. Sheppard, Z., Hundley, V., Dahal, N.P., Paudyal, P. (2022) Writing a quantitative paper, In: Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. (eds.) Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books, pp.78-87.
  4. van Teijlingen E., Ireland, J.C. (2014) Community midwives on the go. Midwives 1: 54-55.

Can ‘VOICE’ help with public involvement in your research? Find out more

Could using ‘VOICE‘ – National public involvement in research platform help with public involvement in your research?

Many researchers will already be aware of patient and public involvement (PPI) and the many benefits and the positive impact it can have in their research.  Please read two examples of how Cathy and Louise, both postgraduate researchers, have implemented public involvement in their research and read on for more information on VOICE and how it help with your research.

Cathy Beresford, Full time PhD student – Experiences of care in advanced liver disease

“For my research with people who have liver disease, I found VOICE extremely helpful for my public involvement strategy. Before I accessed VOICE, I struggled to reach people for public involvement. Although I am a nurse, I do not specialise in liver disease, and I did not have established links with the people I was seeking to do the research with. With fantastic support from BU PIER Officer Kate Jupp, I advertised my public involvement opportunity and had eight people come forward to take part in an online workshop. I reached a mix of people from different parts of the UK, four are people with liver disease and four are carers of individuals with liver disease. I found this to be the perfect number for a really constructive meeting where we discussed the findings of my recent systematic literature review and made plans for the upcoming research as part of my PhD project. All of the attendees of the meeting said they wanted to be further involved in public involvement as part of the research. Members of the group have since contributed to the participant information leaflets for the study and we are planning a further meeting in the autumn. For each meeting, individual members are given a £25 voucher for their time, which is part of my PhD funding.”

Louise Ward, Part time PhD student (and PPI adviser within BUCRU) – Online PPI: Perceptions and experiences of public contributors and researchers in health and social care research.

“Given that PPI is my chosen topic, it was essential that I have voices of those with relevant lived experience in my own doctoral research to help shape its planning and design. After some initial struggles acquiring funding to undertake PPI in my PhD, I ran some informal introductory PPI sessions to gauge how people have found online PPI and whether it’s been working for them.  I spoke with 11 people, 9 of which were found via the VOICE platform, they were a broad range of voices from around the UK. 

I posted an ‘opportunity’ on VOICE and was overwhelmed by the response, 38 people applied.  I had included additional questions to aid selection, e.g. length of time people have been involved in research, but you can choose whatever you wish to ask for extra information, e.g. experience of a certain health condition or use of a particular service.  You are also able to state certain criteria, e.g. age, gender etc. Even with the additional information, it was tough to narrow down to a smaller number (within the budget I’d allowed myself), but after reading through each application I reduced numbers to 10 people and approved/declined/added to wait list accordingly. I ran two PPI sessions via VOICE, the first one with three people (I had some non-attendees so it’s good to plan for that) and the second with six people.  Kate from BU PIER also joined the sessions as it’s always good to have a second person to co-facilitate. Both were really useful sessions and all were keen to stay involved in helping with my future research.  I have since contacted a smaller number of them and plan to run a regular public advisory group throughout my PhD at various stages to ensure my research stays relevant to those whom it impacts the most.”

To summarise, researchers can:

  • Easily and quickly register for VOICE
  • Submit an opportunity request to involve members of the public in their research
  • Use the digital tools the platform offers to involve members of the public in research
  • Promote workshops/groups
  • Facilitate online discussions
  • Promote opportunities for the public to join steering groups
  • Online surveys & polls
  • Set up a closed group to communicate, share documents and support an established public involvement group
  • Access and share support and learning resources to help patient and public involvement and engagement activities

You can register with VOICE and explore what is available. Please email Kate Jupp or Louise Ward or on: voice@bournemouth.ac.uk to discuss how we can help get the public involved in your research and/or promote an event or opportunity to VOICE members.

VOICE are running an introductory session for new members on 11 September 2023 to explain what VOICE is, it will mostly be aimed at members of the public but will give a good insight into what VOICE can offer for researchers too.

Advertising BU’s Systematic Review Masterclass

The Faculty of Health & Social Sciences shall be running the two-day ONLINE MasterclassIntroduction to conducting a systematic literature review’.  The aim is to provide participants with an understanding of how to collate and assess the best possible evidence in the form of a systematic literature review. This masterclass will examine the rationale for systematic literature reviews and take participants through the structured, rigorous, and objective approach used to provide a critical synthesis of the available evidence on a particular topic.

The Masterclass is facilitated by (1) Vanora Hundley, Professor in Midwifery with experience of conducting systematic reviews of health care interventions in both low-and-high-income countries; (2) Edwin van Teijlingen, a medical sociologist with extensive experience in conducting systematic reviews. He has run similar workshops reviews internationally and has published on the importance of systematic reviews; and (3) Caspian Dugdale is Research Librarian with considerable experience in running health information literacy workshops for students, academics and postgraduate researchers.

The masterclass is suitable for anyone who wishes to explore the basic principles involved in conducting a systematic literature review. No previous knowledge is required. Attendees include health and social care practitioners, postgraduate students, and academics.  There will be two online days – 8th and 15th November – which will focus on:

  • Designing a review protocol
  • Formulating a question
  • Identifying and selecting relevant studies
  • Systematic data extraction and collection
  • Synthesis and analysis of the data
  • Writing up and reporting systematic reviews.

Booking Information:

The fee of £400 includes two full days with the course facilitators. We are happy to announce that NHS partner organisations are eligible for a reduced fee £200.

You are now able to book on line for our masterclass: https://www.applycpd.com/BU/courses/116678

The application deadline is 11th October 2023.

For more information contact:
Tel: 01202  962184 or email HSSRKEAdministrator@bournemouth.ac.uk

An Appreciate Inquiry into NHS Maternity Services

 

 

Congratulation to Dr. Rachel Arnold and her Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health research team on the publication yesterday of their paper ‘I might have cried in the changing room, but I still went to work’. Maternity staff balancing roles, responsibilities, and emotions of work and home during COVID-19: An appreciative inquiry [1].   This paper focuses on how to support staff and enhance their well-being in a small UK maternity service.  The underpinning methodological approach is appreciative inquiry using interviews with 39 maternity staff and four group discussions exploring meaningful experiences, values and factors that helped their well-being.

The key findings are that maternity staff members were highly motivated, managing a complex melee of emotions and responsibilities including challenges to professional confidence, mental health, family situation, and conflict between work-life roles. Despite staff shortages, a demanding workload, professional and personal turmoil, and the pandemic participants still found meaning in their work and relationships.  The authors go on to argue for a ‘whole person’ approach, since this approach provided insight into the multiple stressors and emotional demands staff faced. It also revealed staff resourcefulness in managing their professional and personal roles. They invested in relationships with women but were also aware of their limits – the need to be self-caring, employ strategies to switch-off, set boundaries or keep a protective distance.  Overall, the paper concludes hat staff’s well-being initiatives, and research into well-being, would benefit from adopting a holistic approach that incorporates home and family with work. Research on emotion regulation strategies could provide insights into managing roles, responsibilities, and the emotional demands of working in maternity services. Emotion regulation strategies could be included in midwifery and obstetric training.

This paper was proceeded by a more methodological paper on the application of Appreciative Inquiry in this study [2].

 

References:

  1. Arnold, R., Way, S., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) “I might have cried in the changing room, but I still went to work”. Maternity staff managing roles, responsibilities, and emotions of work and home during COVID-19: an Appreciative Inquiry, Women & Birth (online first) 
  2. Arnold, R., Gordon, C., Way, S., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Why use Appreciative Inquiry? Lessons learned during COVID-19 in a UK maternity service, European Journal of Midwifery 6 (May): 1-7.