Category / REF Subjects

Nursing news – nursing degree apprenticeships: in poor health?

NHS, policy

In December 2018 The Education Committee reviewed nursing degree apprenticeships and produced the report Nursing degree apprenticeships: in poor health? The Committee warned that the uptake of nursing degree apprenticeships has been too slow (only 30 started last year) and that the DfE won’t meet their target of 400 nursing associates progressing to degree apprenticeships from 2019. The Committee stated that nursing degree apprenticeships was more of a ‘mirage’ than a successful and sustainable route into the profession unless delivery barriers are resolved. You can read the recommendations from the Committee’s report here.

The Government have now responded to the Committee’s report (Government response here) largely agreeing with several of the Committee’s recommendations. The response:

  • Agrees with recommendations 1 and 2 on maintaining support to  develop a sufficient number of quality nursing apprenticeships. It outlines intent of current reforms in achieving this.
  • Agrees with recommendation 3  that Nurse Degree apprenticeship cannot act as the lone route to train the nursing workforce and adds “that has never been the intention”. Further outlining reforms in place to achieve this.
  • Agrees with recommendation 4 on the need to incentive the NHS to spend time and resource building nursing apprenticeships and outlines the case and plan for making sure “apprenticeships to meet the needs of employers, as well as apprentices and training providers.”
  • On recommendation 5 and the NMC’s consultation on whether nursing associate students should remain supernumerary,  Government outline that the NMC agreed in 26th September “they have approved proposals for an additional approach to nursing associate training, which is a different choice for employers to the supernumerary approach to training. This alternative option will enable employers to work in partnership with approved education institutions, to identify the proportion of time the organisation will be able to support protected learning time for the trainees.”  State the NMC will consider whether to extend this training model to the other professions they regulate once they have undertaken evaluation and review.
  • On recommendation 6 and 9, response outlines the incentives for employers to invest in workforce and the role of the levy.
  • Does not agree with recommendation 7, on the funding band for nursing degree apprenticeships remaining at a minimum of £27,000 and the IfA should consider increasing. Government say nursing degree apprenticeships are in the highest funding band and “The Institute for Apprenticeships is responsible for regularly reviewing standards to make sure they are high quality, continue to meet the needs of employers, and are value for money.”
  • Agrees with recommendation 8 on investment in CPD and state this was recognised in the NHS long-term plan.

(more…)

Dr. Aryal funded to attend international workshop on migration & health

BU research, conferences, Featured, Featured academics, Impact, international, Research communication, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Nirmal Aryal in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences has been selected to participate in an international workshop targeting early career researchers (ECRs) on ‘Engendering research and reframing policy debate on migration & health and intersectional rights’ to be held in Kathmandu (Nepal) from 25th to 28th April 2019.

This workshop is jointly organized by several universities in the UK, India as well as the International Organisation for Migration, as well as the Migration Health and Development Research Initiative(MHADRI). There will be 18 ECRs from South Asia and South East Asia and Nirmal is one for the six from the UK.  The organizers will fund flight to and accommodation in Nepal.

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

Mass Grave Protection for Truth and Justice – Project Launch at ICMP

Awarded & submitted bids, Uncategorized

This week Bournemouth University (BU) and the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) have launched a 21-month program funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) to develop mass grave protection guidelines to support survivors of missing persons and enhance possibilities for securing justice.

Melanie Klinkner Principal Academic in International Law and AHRC Research Leadership Fellow and ICMP Director of Policy & Coordination Andreas Kleiser met at ICMP Headquarters in The Hague to formulate next steps in a process of cross-disciplinary consultation with experts from forensic sciences, international law, NGOs, the security sector, and international organizations. The guidelines will serve as a model for states, non-state actors, international agencies and authorities when faced with gross human rights violations or armed conflicts resulting in mass graves.

Working on the project will also be Dr Ellie Smith who has 15 years of experience within the International Human Rights, International Criminal Law and Humanitarian Law fields, gained through legal practice, civil society engagement and academic research.  She has particular expertise in working with trauma, including within the post-conflict and justice-seeking contexts, as well as in the field of gender violence, investigation and prosecution. In collaboration with the Nuremberg Academy, she has formulated guiding principles and recommendations in relation to prosecution of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence.

ICMP is project partner to the AHRC funded research which is led by Melanie Klinkner. ICMP works with governments, civil society organizations, justice institutions, international organizations and others throughout the world to address the issue of people who have gone missing as a result of armed conflict, human rights abuses, disasters, organized crime, irregular migration and other causes.

For further information on the project, please contact: massgraveprotection@bournemouth.ac.uk

Fertility Control – An Interdisciplinary Approach

Professor Sam Rowlands (FHSS)* and Jeffrey Wale (FMC)** have published a paper ‘Sterilisations at delivery or after childbirth: Addressing continuing abuses in the consent process’ in the international journal, Global Public Health.

This is the first output from an interdisciplinary and cross faculty research project addressing fertility control on the global stage. Specifically, the research examines the regulatory, ethical and medical issues associated with reversible and irreversible forms of fertility control. Future publications will address the use of State incentivised sterilisation in India and the promotion of long-acting reversible contraception.

* Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research & Education, Bournemouth University  ** Centre for Conflict, Rule of Law & Society, Bournemouth University

NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) Roadshow – 10th April 2019

Events, Funding opportunities, NHS, Research news, Research Training

NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) Roadshow

We are offering a number of events which offer an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) and Programme Development Grant (PDG) funding streams.

Registration to these events will be FREE and refreshments will be provided.

The next event taking place in the South is in Exeter, Devon. 10 April 2019.

Places are limited and will be allocated on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. In order to secure your place at our South West event in Exeter, please register using our online form by 1pm, 27 March 2019.

Researchers currently developing, or considering developing, a proposal for submission to PGfAR or PDG for funding are also invited to take advantage of a one to one session (subject to availability) with the NIHR Programme team and RDS staff to discuss their proposed study. To access this opportunity please complete the one to one booking form.

And don’t forget, your local branch of the NIHR RDS (Research Design Service) is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) on the 5th floor of Royal London House. Feel free to pop in and see us, call us on 61939 or send us an email.

Descent or dissent? Social work education in post-Brexit UK

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, international, policy, Research communication, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Prof. Jonathan Parker on the publication of his article ‘Descent or dissent? A future of social work education in the UK post-Brexit‘ in the European Journal of Social Work. In true European style the journal also gives the title in Italian: Discesa o dissenso? Il futuro dell’istruzione nel settore dei servizi sociali nel Regno Unito dopo la Brexit.

 

REF Week: BU REF Outputs Committee and bibliographic databases

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Photo by Shalaka Gamage on Unsplash

BU, like other UK universities, has a support network to help staff prepare for REF 2021. Much of this support centres around three REF categories: Outputs, Impact and Environment. For the past few years I have been chairing the BU REF Outputs Sub-Committee. The committee considers what academics could be doing to maximise their individual outputs and UoAs to maximise the submission of outputs across staff; it also oversees that all outputs are compliant with the requirements for REF submission.

In the latter capacity, the Outputs Sub-Committee oversees the BU Open Access fund to enable staff to publish in Open Access journals that require the payment of a publication fee. One of the key tasks of the committee is to promote REF amongst BU staff, to make sure it is high upon everyone’s agenda, or at least on those members of staff likely to be submitted.

The committee members share ideas and good practice across UoAs. As the different UoAs are of different sizes (in terms of number of staff and hence outputs required) and at different stages of readiness, there is a lot of potential for learning across UoAs. The membership of this committee comprises the Output Champions for all the UoAs to which BU is likely to submit in November 2020. The committee is expertly organised by Shelly Anne Stringer, who makes my life as Chair so much easier.

One issue currently playing is REF2021 changing from using SCOPUS (Elsevier) in REF 2014 as its designated database for ‘checking’ publication data of submissions to Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics). This is particularly important for UoAs in Main Panel A and some in Main Panel B; for BU that is definitely UoA3, UoA4 and UoA11. One would expect that one bibliographic data base is very much like the next one, but nothing is further from the truth.

Knowing that SCOPUS and Web of Science record different outputs, the Outputs Committee approached BU library to investigate. The Academic Liaison Librarian, Caspian Dugdale, took my name as a case study just before Christmas and searched for the various permutations of my name on academic publications. For example, on Scopus there are currently 10 variations on my name. The first finding was that there were 256 publications listed for me on SCOPUS but only 187 on Web of Science. When Caspian compared the two bibliographic datasets, he also discovered that 112 publications were unique to SCOPUS, the larger dataset, but even more interesting perhaps is the finding that 52 records of outputs were unique to Web of Science.

On closer examination, not all records were unique as some simply listed differently on the two databases when attempting to remove duplicate records these were not recognised in the system as duplicates. However, some were unique records, as I had been keeping an eye on my SCOPUS registration since REF 2014 there was nothing new there, but I did pick up two new publications, one from 2013 and one from 2014, that I did not previously know about. Unfortunately, both are half-page conference presentations published in an academic journal long after the conference and both conferences were already listed on my CV.

The main message is that Web of Science appears to be less complete than SCOPUS and that we need to keep a close eye on it to ensure all relevant BU publications are properly recorded.

By Professor Edwin van Teijlingen, Chair of the BU Outputs Sub-Committee

Want to know more?

For more details about how citations data will be used in REF2021, see p.50 of the REF Panel Criteria and Working Methods and p.66 of the REF Guidance on Submissions.

Also, have a look our other BU REF Week blog posts.

REF Week: The importance of research impact

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Photo by James Toose on Unsplash

From your career to the REF and back again

With the institutional mock-REF exercise underway, and submission to REF2021 looming in the not so distant future, it’s a busy period for BU’s Impact Champions, Officers and PDRAs. Ensuring each Unit of Assessment’s most promising impact case studies are identified and developed right up until Research England’s cut-off of 31st July 2020 is the most important duty of BU’s Impact Sub-Committee.

Clearly, impact development is critical across BU for our success in the REF and subsequent quality-related (QR) income. In REF2014, the return for a 4* case study was ~£46k – a fact that can be boasted by contributing authors in their applications for career progression. Yet many academics are reluctant to spend time on impact-related activities, primarily because they feel the time that they invest would be better spent elsewhere. I’d like to contest this viewpoint for three key reasons:

  • Research impact is important to BU and is here to stay: It is heavily featured in BU2025 and the revised definition of Fusion. The Impact Sub-Committee is working to bring about the culture change that is required for impact to be embraced across the institution, and to bring about appropriate recognition for academics with impactful research.
  • A track record of societal impact can increase your chances of grant success: UK Research and Innovation (UKRI, formerly RCUK) bids require impact plans, and those who have previously engaged with society are more likely to be rewarded.
  • Engaging with society, charities and industry provides an opportunity for academics to get out of the office and have a positive influence on the real-world. For some this will have the additional bonus of financial investment and return from those they engage with – many matched-funded PhD studentships result from these relationships.

So how do you get involved in research impact? One of the hardest jobs of the UoA impact teams is to identify potential case studies – if you are already involved in impactful research, let your Impact Champion or Officer know. If you have an idea for future impact, also let them know. Impact development does not need to drain your time, particularly if you seek out the support that is on offer, and work in collaborative teams. This last point is important – developing the best impact case studies will benefit the whole institution in terms of REF return, and the responsibility shouldn’t fall on a few individuals. On the contrary, because research impact has increasing relevance to an individual’s internal and external career progression, there has been no better time to contribute to BU’s REF impact preparations.

By Professor Sarah Bate, Chair of the BU Impact Sub-Committee

Want to know more?

For more information about how impact will be assessed in REF2021, see Part 3, Section 3 of the REF Guidance on Submissions and Part 3, Section 4 and Annex A of the REF Panel Criteria and Working Methods.

Also, have a look our other BU REF Week blog posts.

REF Week: BU REF Preparation Update

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Photo by Nicolas Hoizey on Unsplash

As you will have seen from the Welcome to BU REF Week on Monday, REF 2021 is fast approaching! To prepare for the final submission in Autumn 2020, various stocktake exercises have already taken place, and many BU staff are now in the throes of a mock REF assessment exercise which will examine all three elements of the REF: Outputs, Impact and Environment.

All REF-eligible staff are being asked to submit between 1–5 outputs for review by a panel consisting of a number of academic peers from within BU and 2–3 expert reviewers from external institutions. Outputs should be selected by the academics from their list of publications on BRIAN, the University’s online publications management system. Staff will need to make sure that reviewers can access a full-text version of their chosen outputs by ensuring:

  • The output is uploaded to BURO (BU’s open access repository);
  • The publication record on BRIAN includes a DOI or URL which links to the full output;
  • A copy of the output is uploaded into BRIAN.

The deadline for academics to select their outputs on BRIAN is 28th February 2019.

Each Unit of Assessment (UOA) will also submit a number of Impact Case Studies and an Environment Narrative to the reviewers for assessment. The reviewers are aiming to return their scores in early May 2019 and a UOA Moderation Meeting will then be scheduled for the reviewers within each UOA in May/June 2019 to discuss the scores.

If you have any queries about your REF submission, you can contact your relevant UOA Leader or you can email: REF@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Want to know more?

For more information about REF 2021, have a look at the REF Guidance on Submissions and REF Panel Criteria and Working Methods.

Also, have a look at our other BU REF Week blog posts.

REF Week: Draft BU REF 2021 Code of Practice

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Photo by Pascal Muller on Unsplash

The fundamental policy change for REF 2021 is that institutions must submit all staff with significant responsibility for research, rather than selecting individuals for submission. This change was introduced in response to concerns that selecting staff in previous exercises (such as REF 2014 and RAE 2008) had potentially deleterious effects on individuals, their career choices, progression and morale.

Developing a Code of Practice

All institutions submitting to the REF 2021 must develop and apply a code of practice which sets out the approach they are taking in preparing their submissions. Codes must detail how institutions will apply fair and transparent processes to identify staff with significant responsibility for research, determine who is an independent researcher, and how outputs will be selected. Processes must be consulted on and agreed with staff representative groups. Codes must be submitted to Research England by 7 June 2019. The REF Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel will examine these and advise institutions where revisions are required.

Inclusivity

Inclusivity is extremely important at BU and been a major influence on how the draft BU REF 2021 Code of Practice has developed over the past year. The University Leadership Team (ULT) has discussed various options for identifying staff with significant responsibility for research. These discussions were informed by modelling data and equality analyses. A number of options for identifying staff with significant responsibility for research have been identified. These are based on indicators of active engagement in independent research and will form the basis of the consultation in March with BU staff and staff representative groups. In particular, feedback will be sought on the indicators identified, whether these are applicable across disciplines, and whether these can be applied in a fair, transparent and consistent way to identify all staff with significant responsibility for research.

Your feedback counts!

We plan to share the draft BU REF 2021 Code of Practice with all staff in early March 2019, welcoming feedback and suggestions for improvement. Further information will be available soon!

Want to know more?

See pages 10 and 39 of the REF Guidance on Submissions document for information about how equality and diversity considerations will be taken into account within REF 2021. There is a dedicated Equality and Diversity section on the REF 2021 website too.

Also, have a look at our other BU REF Week blog posts.

BU Systematic Review Masterclass starting tomorrow

BU research, Events, Featured academics, Publishing, Research assessment, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Looking forward to our annual Systematic Review Masterclass at Bournemouth University which will be starting tomorrow February 14th.  This year for the first time we have renamed it a ‘Systematic Review to Inform Clinical Practice’ as it is not only a free-standing masterclass but also a level 7 unit of Continuing Professional Development and Training .  This year we aim to provide students with the opportunity to choose an area of interest and undertake an in-depth, independent study in the form of a systematic review, focusing on a negotiated aspect of clinical practice.  Prof. Vanora Hundley and I had published over twenty systematic reviews (or papers about systematic reviewing) over the past two decades. [1-21]  The unit will have input from BU’s Academic Liaison Librarian, Caspian Dugdale, and BU academics such as Dr. Bibha Simkhada, Lecturer in Nursing.

Professors Vanora Hundley and Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen E, Wilson, B, Barry, N, Ralph, A, McNeill, G, Graham, W, Campbell, D. (eds.) (1998) Effectiveness of interventions to promote healthy eating in pregnant women & women of childbearing age: a review, London: Health Education Authority www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/effect_eatpregant.pdf  [ISBN: 0752110977].
  2. van Teijlingen ER, Bruce, J. (1999) Systematic reviews of health promotion initiatives: the Smokebusters experience, Health Education, 99: 76-83.
  3. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A., van Teijlingen E, Russell E, Napper M, Robb C (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5(5)
  4. Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen E., Porter, M., Simkhada, P. (2008) Factors affecting the utilisation of antenatal care in developing countries: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of Advanced Nursing 61(3): 244-260.
  5. Paul-Ebhohimhen, V.A., Poobalan, A., van Teijlingen E. (2008) Systematic review of effectiveness of school-based sexual health interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa, BMC Public Health, 8(4). www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/4
  6. Robertson L, Douglas F, Ludbrook A., Reid G., van Teijlingen E. (2008) What works with men? A systematic review of health promoting interventions targeting men, BMC Health Services Research 8(141). www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/8/141
  7. Acharya, D.R., Bhattarai, R, Poobalan, A, van Teijlingen E.R., Chapman, G. (2010) Factors associated with teenage pregnancy in South Asia: a systematic review. Health Sciences Journal 4(1): 3-14. www.hsj.gr/volume4/issue1/402.pdf
  8. Hundley V, Avan B, Braunholtz D, and Graham WJ (2012). Are birth kits a good idea? A systematic review of the evidence. Midwifery 28(2): 204-215
  9. Wasti, SP, van Teijlingen E., Simkhada, P., Randall, J., Baxter S, Kirkpatrick P, Vijay Singh Gc. (2012) Factors influencing adherence to antiretroviral treatment in Asian developing countries: a systematic review, Tropical Medicine & International Health 17(1): 71-81. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02888.x/pdf
  10. VA Hundley, BI Avan, CJ Sullivan, WJ Graham. (2013) Should oral misoprostol be used to prevent postpartum haemorrhage in home-birth settings in low-resource countries? A systematic review of the evidence. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 120:277–287DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12049
  11. van Teijlingen, ER, Simkhada, B., Ireland J., Simkhada P., Bruce J. (2012) Evidence-based health care in Nepal: The importance of systematic reviews, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 1(4): 114-118.
  12. Robertson, C, Archibald, D, Avenell, A, Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen E, et al. (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
  13. 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 & Embase, Systematics Reviews 3,78
  14. Gyawali, B., Neupane, D., Sharma, R., Mishra, S.R., van Teijlingen, E., Kallestrup, P. (2015) Prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Nepal: Systematic review & meta-analysis from 2000 to 2014 Global Health Action 8: 29088 www.globalhealthaction.net/index.php/gha/article/view/29088/pdf_189
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Simkhada, P.P., Sharma, A., van Teijlingen, ER., Beanland, R,L. (2016) Factors influencing sexual behaviour between tourists and tourism employees: A systematic review. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 6(1): 530-538. www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/14735/11952
  18. Symon, A., Pringle, J., Cheyne, H., Downe, S., Hundley, V., Lee, E., Lynn, F., McFadden, A., McNeill, J., Renfrew, M., Ross-Davie, M., van Teijlingen, E., Whitford, H, Alderdice, F. (2016) Midwifery-led antenatal care models: Mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components & characteristics of care, BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 16: 168 http://rdcu.be/uifu  
  19. Hanley GE, Munro S, Greyson D, Gross MM, Hundley V, Spiby H and Janssen PA (2016) Diagnosing onset of labor: A systematic review of definitions in the research literature. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 16: 71 http://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-016-0857-4
  20. 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.
  21. Symon, A., Pringle, J., Downe, S., Hundley, V., Lee, E., Lynn, F., McFadden, A., McNeill, J., Renfrew, M., Ross-Davie, M., van Teijlingen, E., Whitford, H., Alderdice, F. (2017) Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 17:8 http://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-016-1186-3
  22. Pitchforth, E, Nolte, E, Corbett, J, Miani, C, Winpenny, E, van Teijlingen E, et al. (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.
  23. 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 17(3): 753-761.
  24. Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Angell, C. (2017) Determinants of quality of care & access to Basic Emergency Obstetric & Neonatal Care facilities & midwife-led facilities in low & middle-income countries: A Systematic Review, Journal of Asian Midwives 4(2):25-51. https://ecommons.aku.edu/jam/vol4/iss2/4/
  25. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Sharma, A., Bissell, P., Poobalan, A., Wasti, S.P. (2018) Health consequences of sex trafficking: A systematic review, Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, 4(1): 130-149.