Category / Publishing

Publish Open Access in Springer Journals for Free!

Guidance, open access, Publishing

Open-Access-logoBU has an agreement with Springer which enables its authors to publish articles open access in one of the Springer Open Choice journals at no additional cost.

There are hundreds of titles included in this agreement, some of which are – Hydrobiologia, European Journal of Nutrition, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Climatic Change, Marine Biology and the Journal of Business Ethics. A full list of the journals included can be found here

To make sure that your article is covered by this new agreement, when your article has been accepted for publication, Springer will ask you to confirm the following:

  • My article has been accepted by an Open Choice eligible journal
  • I am the corresponding author (please use your institutional email address not your personal one)
  • I am affiliated with an eligible UK institution (select your institutions name)
  • My article matches one of these types: OriginalPaper, ReviewPaper, BriefCommunication or ContinuingEducation

Springer will then verify these details with us and then your article will be made available in open access with a CC BY licence.

Please note that 30 Open Choice journals are not included in this agreement as they do not offer CC BY licensing.

If you have any questions about the agreement or the process, please contact OpenAccess@bournemouth.ac.uk

Four new FHSS publications

BU research, Featured academics, open access, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

bond-ahmed-2016

Congratulations to Dr. Carol Bond and Dr. Osman Ahmed in FHSS on the publication of their latest academic paper ‘Can I help you? Information sharing in online discussion forums by people living with a long-term condition’ [1].    Further congratulations are due to Osman who recently had three other papers accepted for publication [2-4].

 

Prof Edwin van Teijlingen

 

References:

  1.  Bond, C., Ahmed, O., 2016. Can I help you? Information sharing in online discussion forums by people living with a long-term condition. Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, 23 (3).
  2. West L.R., Griffin , S., Weiler, R., Ahmed,O. 2016 Management of concussion in disability sport: a different ball game? British Journal of Sports Medicine doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096767
  3. “Educating the masses: Suggestions for improving online concussion information via the mainstream media” in Concussion (not available online yet)
  4. “Do Neurocognitive SCAT3 Baseline Test Scores Differ Between Footballers (Soccer) Living With and Without Disability? A Cross-Sectional Study” in Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine (not yet available online)

 

 

How to Write a 4* Article

BRIAN, BU research, Guidance, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Training, writing

Prof. Mark Reed

A fortnight ago Prof Mark Reed, Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation at Newcastle University and the man behind Fast Track Impact, tweeted some thoughts on how to write a 4* paper for the REF. He went on to explain his thinking in more detail in a guest post on the Research Fundementals blog, the post is published here with the authors permission.

_____________
How do you write a 4* paper for the Research Excellence Framework (REF)? It is a question I’ve asked myself with some urgency since the Stern Review shredded my REF submission by not allowing me to bring my papers with me this year to my new position at Newcastle University.

Obviously the answer is going to differ depending on your discipline, but I think there are a few simple things that everyone can do to maximize their chances of getting a top graded research output.

I’m going to start with the assumption that you’ve actually done original, significant and rigorous work – if you haven’t then there is no point in reading any further. However, as I am increasingly asked to pre-review papers for colleagues across a range of disciplines, I am seeing examples of people who write up work as a 2* or 3* paper that has the potential to get a better score. I should point out that I believe that there is an important role for 1* and 2* papers, and that I regularly write these on purpose to address a problem of national significance and frame it for the specific, narrow audience that is likely to be able to benefit most from my work. However, whether I like it or not, as a Professor in a research-intensive University, there is an expectation that I will be submitted as a 4* researcher, which means I need a few 4* papers as well.

You can see some more detailed thoughts on what I think makes 4* for different types of paper in this Tweet:

As you’ll see from the discussion under that tweet though, my more detailed thoughts probably only apply to Units of Assessment across panels A-C, and probably isn’t relevant to the arts and humanities.

Having said this, I think there are a number of things we can all do to maximize the chances of our work being viewed favourably by REF panelists.

  1. Write to the criteria: when I was learning to drive, my instructor told me that in the test I should make sure I moved my head when I was looking in the rear view mirror, to make sure the examiner noticed I was using my mirrors. We’re all used to writing to the criteria of funding calls, and in fact we are all perfectly used to writing papers to the criteria of our target journals. In the last REF, research outputs were judged against three criteria: originality, significance and rigour. Whatever the interpretation of these criteria in your discipline, have you made it explicit to REF panelists reading your work exactly what is original, and why it is so original? Have you explained and effectively justified the significance of your work? And have you included evidence that your methods, analysis and interpretation is rigorous, even if you have to use supplementary material to include extra detail about your methods and data to get around journal word limits?
  1. Get REF feedback before you submit your work for publication: find out who is going to be reviewing research outputs for REF internally within your Unit of Assessment at your institution and ask them to review your work before you submit it. They may be able to make recommendations about how you might improve the paper in light of the REF criteria. Sometimes a little bit of extra work on the framing of your research in relation to wider contexts and issues can help articulate the significance of your work, and with additional reading and thinking, you may be able to position your work more effectively in relation to previous work to demonstrate its originality more clearly. Adding a few extra details to your methods and results may re-assure readers and reviewers that your approach is indeed rigorous. This is not just about doing world-leading research; it is about demonstrating to the world that your work is indeed world-leading. For me, these criteria are nothing new and are worth paying attention to, whether or not we are interested in REF. Meeting these three criteria will increase the chances that you get through peer-review and will increase the likelihood that your work gets cited.
  1. Analyse and discuss good practice in your own area: the only way to really “get your eye in” for REF is to actually look at examples of good and poor practice in your own area. Below, I’ve described how you can design an exercise to do this with your colleagues. You can do it yourself and learn a lot, but from my own experience, you learn a lot more by doing this as a discussion exercise with colleagues who work in your area. If you can, take notes from your discussion and try and distill some of the key lessons, so you can learn collectively as a group and more effectively review and support each others’ work.

How to organize a discussion to work out what makes a 4* paper in your area:

  • Identify top scoring institutions for your Unit of Assessment (UOA): download the REF2014 results, filter for your UOA (columns E or F), then filter so it only shows you the outputs (column J), and then filter for 4* (column L), showing only the institutions from your UOA that had the highest percentage of 4* outputs. Now for those institutions, look across the table (columns L-P) to see which has the highest proportion of outputs at either 3* or 4*. For example, an institution may have 80% of its outputs graded at 4* and 15% graded at 3*, meaning that 95% of its outputs were graded at 3-4*
  • Download a selection of papers from the top scoring institutions: go to your UOA on the REF website, find and click on the institutions you’ve identified in step 1, under “view submission data”, click on “research outputs”, copy and paste output titles into Google Scholar (or your search engine of choice) and download the articles. You may want to select outputs randomly, or you may want to go through more selectively, identifying outputs that are close to the areas your group specialize in
  • Repeat for low scoring institutions so you can compare and contrast high and low scoring outputs
  • Discuss examples: print copies of the high and low scoring outputs, labeled clearly, and in your next UOA meeting, let everyone choose a high and a low-scoring example. Given them 10-15 minutes to quickly read the outputs (focusing on title, abstract, introduction, figures and conclusions so you’re not there all day) and then ask the group (or small groups if there are many of you) to discuss the key factors that they think distinguish between high and low scoring outputs. Get your group(s) to distill the key principles that they think are most useful and disseminate these more widely to the group, so that anyone who wasn’t present can benefit.

It would be great if I could tell you that these are my “three easy ways to get a 4* paper” but doing work that is genuinely original, significant and rigorous is far from easy. If you have done work that is of the highest quality though, I hope that the ideas I’ve suggested here will help you get the credit you deserve for the great research you’ve done.

New edition qualitative research book

BU research, Featured academics, Publishing, writing

hollowaygalvin-2017Congratulations to BU Professor Emerita Immy Holloway and FHSS (Faculty of Health & Social Sciences) Visiting Faculty Professor Kathleen Galvin on the publication of the latest edition of Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare [1].  This new edition offers insights into both the abstract ideas in qualitative research and its practical procedures. Structured into four sections, the new edition looks at the initial stages, methods of data collection, qualitative approaches and analysis of collected data.  Professor Galvin is Professor of Nursing Practice in the College of Life, Health & Physical Sciences, at the University of Brighton.  Both Immy Holloway and Kate Galvin are affiliated with BU’s Centre for Qualitative Research (CQR), the longest running research centre in FHSS.

 

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

 

Reference:

  1. Holloway I & Galvin K. (2017) Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare. Wiley-Blackwell 4th ed.

 

CEMP books – ‘bumper crop’

BU research, Publishing, writing

51gjvbgj4gl-_sx352_bo1204203200_

November / December see the publication of several books authored / edited by CEMP researchers.

Doing Text: Media After the Subject (Julian McDougall, Auteur / Columbia University Press – with Pete Bennett)

Teaching and Learning on Screen: Mediated Pedagogies (Mark Readman, Palgrave MacMillan)

Popular Culture and the Austerity Myth: Hard Times Today (Julian McDougall, Routledge – with Pete Bennett)

Also forthcoming this academic year –

Digital Media, Culture and Education: Theorising Third Space Literacies (Julian McDougall, Palgrave MacMillan, with John Potter)

The Routledge International Handbook of Media Literacy Education (Julian McDougall, Routledge, with Belinha de Abreu, Alice Lee, Paul Mihaildis and Jad Melki)

Doing Theory on Education: Using Popular Culture to Explore Key Debates (Julian McDougall, Routledge, with Andy Cramp).

Calling all RCUK PIs and Students!

Awarded & submitted bids, Impact, Post-award, Publishing, Research assessment

RCUKlogoWe’ve been informed by RCUK that the next Researchfish submission period will run in February/March 2017. The key dates and policies for the 2017 exercise are detailed below…

 

Next Submission Period dates

Image sourced from The Academy of Medical SciencesPIs will need to log on to researchfish® and submit a return between the 6 February and 4pm on 16 March 2017 to confirm that their outcomes information is accurate and complete at that time. Students will once again be asked to submit their outcomes then too. It is important to note that this time there will not be a blanket extension given to those who don’t submit by the deadline.

 Studentships outcomes collection

The last Submission Period was the first time that all RCUK-funded Students were asked provide research outcomes from their Studentship awards. After considering the information gathered and the feedback received, RCUK has decided in future only students who are in the third or later year of their studies need to submit their outcomes. For the 2017 submission period this means students whose awards started on or before the 5 February 2015.

Sanctions

As was the case after the 2016 Submission Period, non-compliant PIs will lose eligibility to be either a PI or Co-I on further awards from any Research Council and any current awards will have their payments withheld until such time as the PI becomes compliant. Sanctions will not apply to students who do not comply with the request to submit their outcomes.

 

Congratulations to FHSS orthopaedics academics

BU research, Featured academics, Publishing, Research news

j-nurs-ortho-2016Congratulations to James Gavin, Tikki Immins and  Thomas Wainwright on the publication of their systematic review: ‘Stair negotiation as a rehabilitation intervention for enhancing recovery following total hip and knee replacement surgery‘.

Reference:

Gavin, J., Immins, T., Wainwright, T. (2016). Stair negotiation as a rehabilitation intervention for enhancing recovery following total hip and knee replacement surgery. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. Available online October 2016

 

New research on interactivity in advertising published by Dr. Chris Miles

Publishing

We are constantly told how enabling and empowering new interactive digital technologies are. How they free us to talk back to and build relationships with brands, allow us to organise ourselves as consumers, and stimulate marketers to find more relevant and less manipulative ways of communicating with us.  Yet, how true is this really?

A chapter written by Dr. Chris Miles and published in a new Routledge collection, Explorations in Critical Studies in Advertising, investigates the optimistic claims for interactive advertising as a liberating platform for dialogue and co-creation and concludes that they are largely rhetorical strategies designed to persuade decision-makers of the terrifying prospects of losing brand control to consumers. As Dr. Miles concludes, “powerful keywords such as ’empowerment’, ‘interactivity’, and ‘dialogue’ act as discursive grounds for a fearful rededication to the goal of control”. Carefully analysing the ways in which both academic researchers in advertising and practitioner pundits talk about interactive strategies, Dr. Miles found a curious mixture of ostensibly celebratory language alongside terms and comparisons designed to unnerve and threaten marketers and management. The result, argues Dr. Miles, is both an understanding and practice of interactivity which largely serve to consolidate advertising’s traditional control orientation.
Dr. Miles’ chapter is part of the collection Exploration in Critical Studies of Advertising, edited by James Hamilton, Robert Bodle and Ezequiel Korin, and published by Routledge. A full chapter list and outline can be found at the publishers’ site here (link: https://www.routledge.com/Explorations-in-Critical-Studies-of-Advertising/Hamilton-Bodle-Korin/p/book/9781138649521)​.
Dr. Chris Miles is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing & Communication in the Department of Corporate and Marketing Communication. He is a member of the PCCC Research Centre and Head of the BU Advertising Research Group. His research focuses on the discursive construction of marketing theory and practice, particularly as it relates to communication and control. His book, Interactive Marketing: Revolution or Rhetoric?, was published by Routledge in 2010. He is currently working on another monograph for Routledge exploring the relationship between marketing, rhetoric and magic.

Publish Open Access in Springer Journals for Free!

Guidance, open access, Publishing

Open-Access-logoBU has an agreement with Springer which enables its authors to publish articles open access in one of the Springer Open Choice journals at no additional cost.

There are hundreds of titles included in this agreement, some of which are – Hydrobiologia, European Journal of Nutrition, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Climatic Change, Marine Biology and the Journal of Business Ethics. A full list of the journals included can be found here

To make sure that your article is covered by this new agreement, when your article has been accepted for publication, Springer will ask you to confirm the following:

  • My article has been accepted by an Open Choice eligible journal
  • I am the corresponding author (please use your institutional email address not your personal one)
  • I am affiliated with an eligible UK institution (select your institutions name)
  • My article matches one of these types: OriginalPaper, ReviewPaper, BriefCommunication or ContinuingEducation

Springer will then verify these details with us and then your article will be made available in open access with a CC BY licence.

Please note that 30 Open Choice journals are not included in this agreement as they do not offer CC BY licensing.

If you have any questions about the agreement or the process, please contact OpenAccess@bournemouth.ac.uk

Open Access in Horizon 2020

BRIAN, EU, Guidance, open access, Publishing

horizon 2020Open access to peer reviewed publications has been anchored as an underlying principle in the Horizon 2020 and is explained in the Regulation and the Rules of Participation. If you are a beneficiary or hoping to be a beneficiary of a Horizon 2020 grant, you need to be aware of your obligations to publish open access. Below are some of the key points taken from Horizon 2020 guidance which can be accessed in full here.

Are you supposed to deposit?

All Horizon 2020 beneficiaries are required to deposit and ensure open access.

What to deposit

  • A machine-readable electronic copy of the published version publisher’s final version of the paper, including all modifications from the peer review process, copyediting and stylistic edits, and formatting changes (usually a PDF document)

OR

  • A final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication final manuscript of a peer-reviewed paper accepted for journal publication, including all modifications from the peer review process, but not yet formatted by the publisher (also referred to as “post-print” version).

Where to deposit

Researchers should deposit in a repository for publications of their choice. In order to manage and monitor open access compliance, BU request that all authors publish in our institutional repository (BURO) this can be done easily through BRIAN. Further information on how to do this can  be accessed here.

When to deposit

Each beneficiary must deposit as soon as possible. To comply with HEFCEs Open Access policy this should be on acceptance of the article.

Open-Access-logoWhen should Open Access be provided

Each beneficiary must ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest: (i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or (ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case.

For open access publishing, researchers can publish in open access journals, or in journals that sell subscriptions and also offer the possibility of making individual articles openly accessible (hybrid journals).  Where the case, the Author Processing Charges (APCs) incurred by beneficiaries are eligible for reimbursement during the duration of the action. For APCs incurred after the end of their grant agreement, a mechanism for paying some of these costs will be piloted. In the case of open access publishing open access must be granted at the latest on publication.

Beneficiaries must also ensure open access to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication. The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following:

  • the terms [“European Union (EU)” and “Horizon 2020”][“Euratom” and Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018″];
  • the name of the action, acronym and grant number;
  • the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and
  • a persistent identifier.

In all cases, the Commission encourages authors to retain their copyright and grant adequate licences to publishers. Creative Commons offers useful licensing solutions in this regard (e.g. CC-BY, see Creative Commons Licenses).

In the context of the digital era, the notion of’ publication’ increasingly includes the data underpinning the publication and results presented, also referred to as ‘underlying’ data. Beneficiaries must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications, ideally into a data repository, and aim to make open access to this data. But there is no obligation to do so.

The first year student experience – ‘stay-at-home’ students

open access, Publishing

 

Colleagues,

A ‘hot-off-the-press’ publication exploring students experience living at home – maybe of interest to staff busy welcoming our new students, Debbie Holley

=====

Commuting, transitions and belonging: the experiences of students living at home in their first year at university (Pokorny, Holley, Kane)

In this study, our cross-case analysis of students’ lives challenges the conventional home–university model of transition and highlights the importance of acknowledging the influence of this complex symbiotic relationship for students who attend university and live at home. We argue that as with stay-at-home holidays, or “staycations”, which are of such crucial importance to the tourism industry, so stay-at-home students or commuter students are vital to higher education and the term utilised here is “stayeducation”. Through the narratives of “stayeducation” students, we see how family and community aspects of students’ lives are far more significant than previously realised, and our study suggests that these heavily influence the development of a student sense of belonging. Drawing upon biographical narrative method, this paper introduces three first-year Business and Economics students enrolled at different universities in London and explores their journeys through their transition through home, school and early university life. Ways in which key themes play out in the transition stories of our students and the challenges and obstacles for the individual are drawn out through the cross-case analysis. Findings support the existing literature around gender, class and identity; however, new insights into the importance, for these students, of family, friendships and community are presented. Our work has implications for academic staff, those writing institutional policies, and argues for the creation of different spaces within which students can integrate into their new environment.

This article is gold open access and can be accessed here:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-016-0063-3

New Publication: Businesses and mobile social media capability

BU research, Publishing

Bournemouth University’s, Dr Elvira Bolat and Dr Kaouther Kooli, and Professor Len Tiu Wright from University of Huddersfield have published new article in Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing.

bf2c2259-2848-4848-acd4-6e174f1efd23img400

“The study is amongst the first to provide insights into B2B firms’ practices of using mobile social media. This paper found that marketing and advertising firms use mobile social media for branding, sensing market, managing relationships and developing content. Mobile social media is treated by businesses as a strategic firm-specific capability that drives firms’ competitiveness, where imitation of such capability by competitors is limited because mobile social media skills are specific to individuals within organisations and mobile social media routines are manifested as a result of firm-specific mobile social media skills’ interactions.”

Access full article by clicking on the image below.

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-17-33-52

EU award for PhD student Preeti Mahato

EU, Featured, international, PG research, Publishing, Research news, student research, Uncategorized

FHSS PhD student Preeti Mahato in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) has been awarded a funded place on the COST Action Training School BEYOND BIRTH COHORTS: from study design to data management.  This training school will run from 23-15 November in Spain.

eu-flagCOST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a unique platform where European researchers can jointly develop their ideas and initiatives across all scientific disciplines through trans-European networking of nationally funded research.  Preeti pal has been awarded the sum of 500 euro to cover the cost of attending the Training School and travel and accommodation costs.    Preeti’s PhD project is on maternity care provision in  Nepal. Preeti’s research focuses on the quality and equity of service available at birthing centres. In Nepal, birthing centres act as first contact point for the women seeking maternity services especially the basic obstetric care. She is supervised by Dr. Catherine Angell, Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen and BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada (based at Liverpool John Moores University).

Preeti has already published the first PhD paper ‘Birthing centres in Nepal: Recent developments, obstacles and opportunities’ in the Journal of Asian Midwives (JAM) [1], whilst another was published in the Nepal Journal of Epidemiology [2].  Furthermore, a more general health and development paper was published this year in Health Prospect [3].

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. 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): 17-30.
  2. 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/14260/1157
  3. Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Sharma, S., Mahato, P. (2016) Sustainable Development Goals: relevance to maternal & child health in Nepal. Health Prospect 15(1):9-10. healthprospect.org/archives/15/1/3.pdf

OpenAIRE Webinars

EU, open access, Publishing, writing

openaccessweek_logo

For this year’s 9th International Open Access Week, OpenAIRE has scheduled a full week of webinars on various exciting Open Science topics. During the week of October 24-30, join them at lunchtime (12.00 CEST) each day for key insights into the ethics and implementation of Open Science, especially as they relate to the EC’s Horizon2020 programme and OpenAIRE’s mission to foster the social and technical links that enable Open Science in Europe and beyond.

  • MONDAY: “The fundamentals of Open Science”, October 24, 2016 at 12.00 CEST, on key introductory themes in Open Science, with Tony Ross-Hellauer (OpenAIRE, University of Goettingen), Paola Masuzzo (Ghent University) and Chris Hartgerink (Tilburg University).
  • TUESDAY: “H2020 Open Access mandate for project coordinators and researchers”, October 25, 2016 at 12.00 CEST, on Open Access to publications in Horizon 2020, with Eloy Rodrigues and Pedro Principe (University of Minho).
  • WEDNESDAY: “Open Research Data in H2020 and Zenodo repository”, October 26, 2016 at 12.00 CEST, on Research Data Management in Horizon 2020 and the Zenodo repository functionalities, with Marjan Grootveld (DANS) and Krzysztof Nowak (CERN).
  • THURSDAY: “Policies for Open Science: webinar for research managers and policy makers”, October 27, 2016 at 12.00 CEST, on OpenAIRE’s policy activities building on the PASTEUR4OA project, and how to create/implement policies for open science at a local and national level, with Marina Angelaki and Alma Swan (PASTEUR4OA) and Tony Ross-Hellauer (OpenAIRE).
  • FRIDAY: “OpenAIRE guidelines and broker service for repository managers”, October 28, 2016 at 12.00 CEST, on Openaire compatibility guidelines and the dashboard for Repository Managers, with Pedro Principe (University of Minho) and Paolo Manghi (CNR/ISTI).

To participate in any (or all) of these webinars, please register here: https://goo.gl/HIcpJT

 

 

CMMPH disability & childbirth research

BU research, Featured, Publishing, Uncategorized

Last month’s press release for the latest study in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) was picked up by the Journal of Family Health.  disability-pregnancy-2016The study ‘Human rights and dignities: Experience of disabled women during pregnancy, childbirth and early parenting’ appeared under the heading ‘Maternity care failing disabled women, charity warns’ in the Journal of Family Health.  The charity in question is Birthrights which funded the survey of women with physical or sensory impairment or long-term health conditions and their maternity care experiences.  The research was conducted by midwifery researchers Jenny Hall, Jillian Ireland and Vanora Hundley at Bournemouth University and occupational therapist Bethan Collins, at the University of Liverpool.

rcm-disabilityLast month this important study had already been reported by the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) on their webpages (click here to read more).  On the RCM website  Louise Silverton Director for Midwifery at the RCM said: “It is deeply disappointing to hear that women with disabilities are not getting the maternity care they need and deserve. Although this is only a small survey, it does provide a very valuable insight into the realties of the care these women have received while pregnant.  The RCM believes that maternity services should treat disabled women like every other woman, while ensuring that the care provided does not ignore or overreact to their specific wishes and aspirations.”

 

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH