Category / international

Congratulations to BU Visiting Faculty Dr Ans Luyben

international, Publishing, Research communication, Research news, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Ans Luyben on the publication of her latest midwifery article ‘How to promote midwives’ recognition and professional autonomy? A document analysis study’ [1]. This latest paper will appear in the forthcoming November issue of the international scientific journal Midwifery, published by Elsevier. 

The paper identified challenges in Belgian midwives’ recognition and professional autonomy and provided recommendations to address them, emphasizing the importance of recognized authority in midwifery. Implementing these recommendations can positively impact midwives’ recognition and autonomy in Belgium as well as in other countries.  Ans has long been affiliated with the Centre of Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH) as Visiting Faculty and she works in the Frauenzentrum (Centre for Women’s Health), Lindenhofgruppe, Bern, Switzerland.

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

 

 

Reference:

  1. Vermeulen, J., Buyl, R., Luyben, A., Fleming, V., Tency, I., Fobelets, M. (2024) How to promote midwives’ recognition and professional autonomy? A document analysis study Midwifery, 138: 104138.  

Paper with a difference

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, Publishing, Uncategorized, writing

Last night ResearchGate informed us that our paper ‘Understanding health education, health promotion and public health‘ had reached 6,000 reads [1].  This reflective paper in an Open Access journal tries to bring a little more clarity in the confusion around the difference between the concepts of health education, health promotion and public health. We argue that such confusion does not limit itself to the individual terms but also to how these terms relate to each other. Some authors and public health practitioners use terms such as health education and health promotion interchangeably; others see them clearly as different concepts.

In this theoretical overview paper, we have first of all outlined our understanding of these individual terms. We suggest how the five principles of health promotion as outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) fit into Andrew Tannahill’s model from 2009 [2] of three overlapping areas: (a) health education; (b) prevention of ill health; and (c) health protection. Our schematic overview places health education within health promotion and health promotion itself in the center of the overarching disciplines of education and public health. We hope our representation helps reduce confusion among all those interested in our discipline, including students, educators, journalists, practitioners, policymakers, politicians, and researchers.

The paper is co-authored by a primary school teacher based in Dorset, and four professors who have a combined experience in the wider public health field of over a century.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, K., Devkota, B., Douglas, F., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) Understanding health education, health promotion and public health, Journal of Health Promotion 9(1):1-7.
  2. Tannahill, A. (2009). Health promotion: The Tannahill model revisited. Public Health, 123(5),396-399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2008.05.021

MaGMap: Mass Grave Mapping

BU research, conferences, EU, international, Research communication, Research news

Mapping projects related to mass atrocities and human rights violations are prevalent across the globe. Despite their often well-intentioned origins, there has been minimal practical research and subsequent output focused on what constitutes effective mapping. Furthermore, there is a lack of guidance on how to balance the pursuit of justice with the need to protect victims and affected communities. This raised an essential question: where, when and under what circumstances should mapping of mass graves be avoided or kept secret so that protection is not jeopardised?

 

In 2022, Professor Melanie Klinkner and Dr Ellie Smith secured Leverhulme funding to address this critical question. As of August 30th, 2024, the project’s output has been completed and is now available as an open-access resource for global use. The output is accessible both online and in a physical format, consisting of a comprehensive workbook accompanied by a set of removable tools designed to guide practitioners through the mapping process. These tools include:

 

  • Mapping Process Flowchart: The flowchart illustrates the life cycle of a mass grave, highlighting the key stages and considerations at each step, all guided by the protection of rights.

 

  • Mapping Decision Tree: Accompanying the flowchart, the decision tree highlights concerns and necessary actions that must be addressed before progressing with mapping at each stage.

 

  • Risk Register: This element assists in decision-making processes by enabling logging and evaluations of risks and subsequent mitigation strategies.

 

Upon completion of the research Dr Ellie Smith outlines that:

“Mapping mass graves in an open-source format has the potential to provide longer-term protection of the site, as well as a means of countering revisionism, but is not without risks. The aim of our MaGMap tools is to enable anyone involved in mass grave mapping to do so in a way that is safe for survivors, witnesses and the families of victims, and preserves the integrity of the site as a crime scene”.

 

For Professor Melanie Klinkner the finalisation of these resources means that:

“Theoretical, transferable foundations have been laid to inform continued research and current mapping of atrocity practices. In fact, much of what we have learned during the course of the project now guides our own approach to building a regularised global mass grave map. This is significant: it will enable us to fully appraise the scale and magnitude of mass graves across the world in a rights-compliant and safe manner”.

 

Dr Ellie Smith will be presenting the findings of MaGMap this week at the European Society of International Law Conference in Lithuania.

 

New publication Dr. Pramod Regmi

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, Research communication, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Pramod Regmi on the publication of his latest Open Access paper ‘Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life of Stroke Survivors in Southeast Communities in Nigeria’ [1].  Dr. Regmi is based in the Centre for  for Wellbeing & Long-Term Health.   The paper’s co-authors include Dr. Folashade Alloh, who completed her PhD studies at Bournemouth University a few years ago.

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

 

Reference:

  1. Adigwe GA, Alloh F, Smith P, Tribe R, Regmi P. Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life of Stroke Survivors in Southeast Communities in Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(9):1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21091116

New qualitative research methods paper now online

BU research, Featured academics, Fusion themes, international, open access, Publishing, Research communication, research integrity, research methods, Research Training, Training, Uncategorized, writing

I am delighted to share that our most recent methods paper in the International Journal of Qualitative Methods entitled “Most Significant Change Approach: A Guide to Assess the Programmatic Effects” [1] is now published and is available online (click here!).  This paper is co-authored by Mohan K. Sharma, Shanti P. Khanal and Edwin R.van Teijlingen.

The paper outlines the so-called ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) participatory technique to monitor and evaluate programmatic effects. MSC is a form of monitoring that can be applied throughout the programme cycle and it provides information to help manage the programme. Furthermore, MSC as an evaluation method, provides stories from which programmes’ overall impact can be assessed. However, MSC, as a participatory evaluation technique using qualitative approaches, is often neglected by many evaluators.

 

This is the latest in a series of papers describing the strengths and weaknesses of applying specific research approaches.  Other recent methods papers included two on positionality [2-3], a paper on interview methods [4], reflections on conducting participatory policy analysis in Nepal [5], some considerations about the selection of study localities in health research [6], distinguishing between methods and methodology [7], the use of the appreciative inquiry methods [8], reflections on interdisciplinary research [9], and patient and public involvement in research in Bangladesh and Nepal [10].

Whilst older methods papers published Faculty of Health & Social Sciences academics include topics such as focus group discussions, working with translators, conducting pilot studies, the Delphi Method, comparative studies, and qualitative interviews [11-22].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH

 

References:

  1. Sharma, M.K., Khanal, S.P., van Teijlingen E. (2024) Most Significant Change Approach: A Guide to Assess the Programmatic Effects, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/16094069241272143
  2. Gurr, H., Oliver, L., Harvey, O., Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2024) Positionality in Qualitative Research, Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology & Anthropology 18(1): 48-54. https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v18i01.67553
  3. Thapa, R., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Heaslip, V. (2023) Researching Dalits and health care: Considering positionality, Health Prospect 21(1): 6-8.
  4. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E., Parrish, M. (2024) Using a range of communication tools to interview a hard-to-reach population, Sociological Research Online 29(1): 221–232 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/13607804221142212
  5. Sapkota, S., Rushton, S., van Teijlingen, E., Subedi, M., Balen, J., Gautam, S., Adhikary, P., Simkhada, P., Wasti,SP., Karki, JK., Panday, S., Karki, A., Rijal, B., Joshi, S., Basnet, S., Marahatta, SB. (2024) Participatory policy analysis in health policy and systems research: reflections from a study in Nepal. Health Research & Policy Systems, 22(7) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01092-5 .
  6. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Rushton, S., Balen, J., Subedi, M., Karki, J., Adhikary, P., Sapkota, S., Gautam, S., Marahatta, S., Panday, S., Bajracharya, B., Vaidya, A. for the Nepal Federal Health System Team (2023) Selection of Study Sites and Participants for Research into Nepal’s Federal Health System, WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health
  7. Harvey, O., Regmi, P.R., Mahato, P., Dhakal Adhikari, S., Dhital, R., van Teijlingen E. (2023) Methods or Methodology: Terms That Are Too Often Confused. Journal of Education & Research, 13(2): 94-105. https://doi.org/10.51474/jer.v13i2.716
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/147444
  9. Shanker, S., Wasti, S.P., Ireland, J., Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) The Interdisciplinary Team Not the Interdisciplinarist: Reflections on Interdisciplinary Research, Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences 3(2): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.46405/ejms.v3i2.317
  10. Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen, E., Nadeem, A., Green, S., Warren A. (2021) Importance of involving patients and public in health research in Bangladesh and Nepal. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 37: e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320000811
  11. Kirkpatrick, P., van Teijlingen E. (2009) Lost in Translation: Reflecting on a Model to Reduce Translation and Interpretation Bias, The Open Nursing Journal, 3(8): 25-32 web address: bentham.org/open/tonursj/openaccess2.htm
  12. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2005) Pilot studies in family planning & reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31(3): 219-21.
  13. van Teijlingen E, Pitchforth E. (2006) Focus Group Research Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 32(1): 30-2
  14. van Teijlingen E, Pitchforth, E., Bishop, C., Russell, E.M. (2006) Delphi method and nominal group techniques in family planning and reproductive health research, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 32(4): 249-252.
  15. Pitchforth, E, van Teijlingen E, Ireland, J. (2007) Focusing the group, RCM Midwives Journal 10(2): 78-80.
  16. Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen E. (2005) International Public Health Research involving interpreters: a case study approach from Bangladesh, BMC Public Health, 5: 71 Web address: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-5-71.pdf
  17. Forrest Keenan, K., Teijlingen van, E., Pitchforth, E. (2005) Analysis of qualitative research data in family planning & reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31(1): 40-43.
  18. Brindle S, Douglas, F, van Teijlingen E., Hundley V. (2005) Midwifery Research: Questionnaire surveys, RCM Midwives Journal 8 (4): 156-158.
  19. Douglas, F, van Teijlingen E, Brindle S, Hundley, V, Bruce, J., Torrance, N. (2005) Designing Questionnaires for Midwifery Research, RCM Midwives Journal 8: 212-215.
  20. van Teijlingen E Ireland, J. (2003) Research interviews in midwifery RCM Midwives Journal 6: 260-63. http://www.midwives.co.uk/default.asp?chid=439&editorial_id=13768
  21. van Teijlingen E, Sandall, J., Wrede, S., Benoit, C., DeVries, R., Bourgeault, I. (2003) Comparative studies in maternity care RCM Midwives Journal 6: 338-40.
  22. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2002) ‘The importance of pilot studies’ Nursing Standard 16(40): 33-36. Web: nursing-standard.co.uk/archives/vol16-40/pdfs/vol16w40p3336.pdf