Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
BU Visiting Prof. Padam Simkhada and BU’s Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen published a blog post about Nepal’s significant progress in improving the health of women and a striking reduction on maternal mortality. The paper highlights that despite difficult terrain, conflict and political turmoil, Nepal was one of the few countries that managed to achieve Millennium Development Goal 5 on maternal health in 2015.
The post is published by the website Making My Perfect Country.
BU PhD student Mrs Preeti Mahato published her latest scientific paper ‘Determinants of quality of care and access to Basic Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care facilities and midwife-led facilities in low and middle-income countries: A Systematic Review’ in the Journal of Asian Midwives [1]. This paper is co-authored by Dr. Catherine Angell and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, who are both based in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) and Prof. Padam Simkhada, BU Visiting Professor and based at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). Journal of Asian Midwives is a free Open Access journal, freely available for anybody across the globe to read online.
The authors highlight that maternal mortality is a major challenge to health systems in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) where almost 99% of maternal deaths occurred in 2015. Primary-care facilities providing Basic Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care (BEmONC) facilities, and facilities that are midwife-led are appropriate for normal birth in LMICs and have been proposed as the best approach to reduce maternal deaths. However, the poor quality of maternal services that leads to decreased utilisation of these facilities is among the major causes of maternal deaths worldwide. This systematic review studied factors affecting the quality of care in BEmONC and midwife-led facilities in LMICs.
Thematic analysis on included studies revealed various factors affecting quality of care including facility-level determinants and other determinants influencing access to care. Facility-level determinants included these barriers: lack of equipment and drugs at the facility, lack of trained staff, poor attitudes and behaviour of service providers, and poor communication with women. Facility-level positive determinants were: satisfaction with services, emotional support during delivery and trust in health providers. The access-to-care determinants were: socio-economic factors, physical access to the facility, maintaining privacy and confidentiality, and cultural values. The authors include that improving quality of care of birthing facilities requires addressing both facility level and non-facility level determinants in order to increase utilization of the services available at the BEmONC and midwife-led facilities in LMICs.
This is the fifth paper co-authored by CMMPH’s current most published PhD student. The evaluation of birth centres in rural Nepal by Preeti Mahato under joint supervision Dr. Angell and Prof. Simkhada (LJMU) and Prof. van Teijlingen.
References:
Lizzie Gadd warns against jumping on ‘bad metrics’ bandwagons without really engaging with the more complex responsible metrics agenda beneath.An undoubted legacy of the Metric Tide report has been an increased focus on the responsible use of metrics and along with this a notion of ‘bad metrics’. Indeed, the report itself even recommended awarding an annual ‘Bad Metrics Prize’. This has never been awarded as far as I’m aware, but nominations are still open on their web pages. There has been a lot of focus on responsible metrics recently. The Forum for Responsible Metrics have done a survey of UK institutions and is reporting the findings on 8 February in London. DORA has upped its game and appointed a champion to promote their work and they seem to be regularly retweeting messages that remind us all of their take on what it means to do metrics responsibly. There are also frequent twitter conversations about the impact of metrics in the up-coming REF. In all of this I see an increasing amount of ‘bad metrics’ bandwagon-hopping. The anti-Journal Impact Factor (JIF) wagon is now full and its big sister, the “metrics are ruining science” wagon, is taking on supporters at a heady pace.
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing.
It’s not a bad thing, this increased awareness of responsible metrics; all these conversations. I’m responsible metrics’ biggest supporter and a regular slide in my slide-deck shouts ‘metrics can kill people!’. So why am I writing a blog post that claims that there is no such thing as a bad metric? Surely these things can kill people? Well, yes, but guns can also kill people, they just can’t do so unless they’re in the hands of a human. Similarly, metrics aren’t bad in and of themselves, it’s what we do with them that can make them dangerous.
In Yves Gingras’ book, “Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation” he defines the characteristics of a good indicator as follows:
So, you might have an indicator such as ‘shoe size’, where folks with feet of a certain length get assigned a certain shoe size indicator. No problem there – it’s adequate (length of foot consistently maps on to shoe size); it’s sensitive to the thing it measures (foot grows, shoe size increases accordingly), and it’s homogenous (one characteristic – length, leads to one indicator – shoe size). However, in research evaluation we struggle on all of these counts. Because the thing we really want to measure, this elusive, multi-faceted “research quality” thing, doesn’t have any adequate, sensitive and homogeneous indicators. We need to measure the immeasurable. So we end up making false assumptions about the meanings of our indicators, and then make bad decisions based on those false assumptions. In all of this, it is not the metric that’s at fault, it’s us.
In my view, the JIF is the biggest scapegoat of the Responsible Metrics agenda. The JIF is just the average number of cites per paper for a journal over two years. That’s it. A simple calculation. And as an indicator of the communication effectiveness of a journal for collection development purposes (the reason it was introduced) it served us well. It’s just been misused as an indicator of the quality of individual academics and individual papers. It wasn’t designed for that. This is misuse of a metric, not a bad metric. (Although recent work has suggested that it’s not that bad an indicator for the latter anyway, but that’s not my purpose here). If the JIF is a bad metric, so is Elsevier’s CiteScore which is based on EXACTLY the same principle but uses a three-year time window not two, a slightly different set of document types and journals, and makes itself freely available.
If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
I understand why DORA trumpets the misuse of JIFs; it is rife and there are less imperfect tools for the job. But there are also other metrics that DORA doesn’t get in a flap about – like the individual h-index – which are subject to the same amount of misuse, but are actually more damaging. The individual h-index disadvantages certain demographics more than others (women, early-career researchers, anyone with non-standard career lengths); at least the JIF mis-serves everyone equally. And whilst we’re at it peer review can be an equally inadequate research evaluation tool (which, ironically, metrics have proven). So if we’re to be really fair we should be campaigning for responsible peer review with as much vigour as our calls for responsible metrics.
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge can lead to a bumper sticker culture ( “I HEART DORA” anyone? “Ban the JIF”?) which could move us away from, rather than towards, the responsible use of metrics. These concepts are easy to grasp hold of, but they mask a far more complex and challenging set of research evaluation problems that lie beneath. The responsible use of metrics is about more than the avoidance of certain indicators, or signing DORA, or even developing your own bespoke Responsible Metrics policy (as I’ve said before this is certainly easier said than done).
The responsible use of metrics requires responsible scientometricians. People who understand that there is really no such thing as a bad metric, but it is very possible to misuse them. People with a deeper level of understanding about what we are trying to measure, what the systemic effects of this might be, what indicators are available, what their limitations are, where they are appropriate, how they can best triangulate them with peer review. We have good guidance on this in the form of the Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide and DORA. However, these are the starting points of often painful responsible metric journeys, not easy-ride bandwagons to be jumped on. If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
Let’s get off the ‘metric-shaming’ bandwagons, deepen our understanding and press on with the hard work of responsible research evaluation.
Elizabeth Gadd is the Research Policy Manager (Publications) at Loughborough University. She has a background in Libraries and Scholarly Communication research. She is the co-founder of the Lis-Bibliometrics Forum and is the ARMA Metrics Special Interest Group Champion
Original content posted on The Bibliomagician reposted here with permission. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Today saw the latest publication on the health and well-being of migrant workers by BU staff. The paper ‘A survey of health problems of Nepalese female migrants workers in the Middle-East and Malaysia’ was published in the Open Access journal BMC International Health and Human Rights [1]. The paper is based on data collected by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Pourakhi (Nepal).
Pourakhi, meaning self-reliant in Nepali, was established in 2003 to advocate for the rights of women who returned to Nepal after having worked abroad. The current Chair Manju Gurung is co-author on our paper.
Since 2003, Pourakhi has established a number of programmes around pre-employment, pre-departure, employment and post arrival support. In 2009, it opened a Shelter Facility to provide a safe space for women who returned to Nepal and were not able to rejoin their family and community. Pourakhi recognized that many women who returned from abroad had been victimized abroad and needed to seek relief from the government. In order to provide assistance to these women, In addition, Pourakhi established programmes to empower women after they return to Nepal from foreign employment. More specifically, Pourakhi established a financial literacy programme to educate women and an in business skills.
Pourakhi has been instrumental in ensuring that the voices of migrant women workers are heard and reflected in national policy and law. Additionally, it has successfully lobbied the government to ratify a number of international laws needed to protect the rights of female migrant workers.
Although Pourakhi began as an organisation by and on behalf of women, it has recognized that all migrant workers have the right to safe migration. Therefore, Pourakhi now assists both woman and men in all stages of the migration process.
The other two Nepali-speaking co-authors are Prof. Padam Simkhada from Liverpool john Moores University, who is also Visiting Professor in Bournemouth University’s Faculty of Health & Social Sciences and Dr. Sharada Prasad Wasti who is working for the Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University, Washington, DC in the USA.
Reference:
Congratulations to FHSS Prof. Vanora Hundley and her co-authors from across the globe who published ‘Progression of the first stage of spontaneous labour: A prospective cohort study in two sub-Saharan African countries’ in the journal PLOS Medicine [1].
The authors highlight that since the early 2000s researchers using new statistical methods to have informed changes in recommended labour practices in some settings, they have also generated a lot of controversy. As a result of persistent questions as to whether racial characteristics influence labour progression patterns, recent studies have been conducted among different populations, but not yet in any African population. The authors conclude that
Congratulations to all authors!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
Reference:
Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Fawole B, Mugerwa K, Perdoná G, Alves D, Souza, H, Reis, R, Oliveira-Ciabati, L., Maiorano, A, Akintan, Alu, F.E, Oyeneyin, L, Adebayo, A, Byamugisha, J, Nakalembe, M, Idris, H.A, Okike, O, Althabe, F., Hundley, V, Donnay, F. et al. (2018) PLoS Med 15(1): e1002492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002492
Within the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF), there are a number of events in the coming months to support your academic publishing activities.
The flagship three-day Writing Academy retreats will commence on 11th April and 27th June. To find out more, please see the information page. Please note that you will need faculty to support to attend and cannot book onto these events without this recommendation.
If you have specific needs or wish to ‘dip your toe in the water’, there are shorter sessions available:
Find out more about what is on offer to support your academic publishing and your wider research development.
This last week two separate papers have been accepted on aspects of health and well-being among migrants workers from Nepal. The first in the International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care is based on a completed PhD project in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences with Dr. Pratik Adhikary as first author [1]. This paper ‘Health and well-being of Nepalese migrant workers abroad’ is co-authored by two former FHSS staff Dr. Zoe Sheppard and Dr. Steve Keen, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen of the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH).
The second paper ‘A study of Health Problems of Nepalese Female Migrants Workers in the Middle-East and Malaysia’ was accepted by the Open Access journal BMC International Health & Human Rights [2]. The lead author of this paper is Bournemouth University (BU) Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada (based at Liverpool John Moores University) and two of his co-authors are based in Nepal: Manju Gurung (chair of Pourakhi Nepal) and Dr. Sharada Prasad Wasti and one at BU: Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen .
There is a growing momentum in migration research at BU with further academic papers being published related to studies on migrant workers from Nepal [4-8], relatives of migrant workers [9], migration into the UK [10-12], Eastern European migration issues [13-15], migration and tourism [16], migration and the media [17] as well as migration in the past [18].
References:
Over the Festive Season the International Journal of Childbirth published the latest article from staff based at the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) [1]. This paper ‘Women, Midwives, and a Medical Model of Maternity Care in Switzerland’ is co-authored with Bournemouth University Visiting Faculty Ans Luyben (a Dutch midwife working in Switzerland), Sue Brailey from the School of Health & Education at Middlesex University and Lucy Firth at the University of Liverpool.
This Swiss paper builds on a body of work within CMMPH around a medical/social model of childbirth. BU academics have applied this model in multidisciplinary studies, including the disciplines of midwifery, [2-4] sociology, [5] and media studies [6].
References
Congratulations to PhD student Folashade Alloh and Faculty of Health & Social Sciences academics Dr. Desiree Tait and Dr. Clare Taylor on the first academic publication for 2018. Their paper ‘Away from home: A qualitative exploration of health experiences of Nigerian students in a UK university’ has been published in the Journal of International Students.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
The final issue for 2017 of the Dutch Journal for Midwives, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Verloskundigen, published our contribution on midwives and the media [1]. The two-page article ‘MEER BEMOEIEN MET MEDIA’ argues (in Dutch) that midwives as individuals and as a profession must try to engage with the media. Midwives should be open to starting a dialogue concerning issues around maternity care and midwifery. This article published in a practitioners’ journal builds on the collaborative research conducted at Bournemouth University around midwifery and the media [2-4], and our recently published edited book on the topic [5].
Ann Luce, Vanora Hundley & Edwin van Teijlingen
References:
This morning as Associate Editor I reviewed one academic paper resubmitted to BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth. After this I had to invite three reviewers for another paper newly submitted to BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth.
This afternoon I peer-reviewed a paper submitted to Women & Birth. For readers of our BU Research Blog who are not involved in academia, the volume of requests to review for scientific journals has gone through the roof in the past few years. 
And these are legitimate requests from high quality journals. There is a whole heap of so-called predatory journals pestering academics for reviews (and papers and editorial board memberships).
All that is left to be done before the Christmas Break is editing six short book chapters, submitting one scientific paper, and answer seventy odd emails.
Merry Christmas and a Happy & Healthy 2018
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Congratulations to Dr Edward Carlton (an ex-PhD student at BU supervised by Professor Ahmed Khattab and Professor Kim Greaves) on his co-authored paper published in JAMA.
Data from Edward’s original work (The TRUST Study, part of his PhD thesis) has now been published in JAMA (Impact Factor 44.4) in a collaborative meta-analysis. This showcases the work from one of our fully funded PhD studentships at BU.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2662908
Well done! Congratulations to both former PhD student and his supervisors.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Two days ago saw the publication of the latest paper on migration research here at Bournemouth University. The journal Health Prospect published ‘Risky work: Accidents among Nepalese migrant workers in Malaysia, Qatar and Saudi’ [1]. This new paper is based on the PhD research project conducted by Dr. Pratik Adhikary. Health Prospect is a peer-reviewed Open Access journal, part of Nepal Journals Online (NepJOL) which offers free access to research on and/or from Nepal. The paper is co-authored by former FHSS staff Dr. Zoe Sheppard and Dr. Steve Keen as well as Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen of the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH).
Previous academic papers by BU scholars included, amongst others, work on migrant workers from Nepal [2-6], relatives of migrant workers [7], migrant health workers [8-9], migration and tourism [10-11], migrant workers from Eastern Europe [11-13], migration and the media [14] as well as migration in the past [15]. The various strands of work link very well to BU’s application for Leverhulme Doctoral Scholarships.
References:
Introduction
Academic have been warned for a decade about predatory Open Access publishers (van Teijlingen 2014). These are commercial organisations charging academics a publication fee on submission of their manuscripts with a promise to publish their work quickly online. The problem is twofold: first, these commercial organisations don’t offer proper peer-review and editorial quality assurance; and secondly, academic are being tricked into believing the journal is a legitimate scientific publication. The second author receives on average six to eight invitations a week to publish in this kind of predatory journals – see below for examples. The first author, who despite having not worked in an academic institution for over three years, still receives such invitations to publish in ‘Journal X’.
Predatory conferences
A similar phenomenon to predatory journals is the predatory conference (Moital 2014; Nobes 2017; Grove 2017). These are pretend academic conferences of questionable value, established first and foremost to make money, not for the greater good of the academic discipline.
Both authors have received bogus and legitimate invitations to attend conferences. A predicament with such an invitation, which 99% of time arrives by email, is that it is not easy to distinguish between fake and real offers. For example, the first author recently received an offer (at short notice), to attend a conference in Miami in November 2017 (see below). This was on the back of an editorial he had published couple of months earlier. For a career researcher going from contract to contract, the appeal of being invited to present a keynote at a conference can be flattering, far less an honour and a boost for one’s career. Therefore, while the idea that if it seems too good to be true, is a prudent one to hold; there is also a temptation to follow through.
The author replied to the request quizzing the reason for the invite out of the blue. The answer was less than convincing, and a swift email by the author saying “Don’t tell me… You are offering me a keynote with travel and accommodation… Lol!!” called their bluff and ended correspondence.
But digging a little deeper he found there was a webpage dedicated to taking payments to attend the conference. In the digital world, a fool can be easily and quickly separated from his or her money.
Of course, it may have been a real conference at a real venue, and they really wanted him to speak. But discerning this is not easy at first…
Some of the warning signs/What to look out for
Furthermore, Andy Nobes (2017) offered some helpful advice on quality of the conference websites in the list below. Andy is based at AuthorAID, a global network providing support, mentoring, resources and training for researchers in developing countries.
Who is at risk of falling for predatory conferences?
Academics need to be aware of money-making conferences and meetings without a true commitment to science. But some academics might be more at risk than others. Young researchers, PhD students and fledgling academics, living from contract to contract may feel any conference attendance is a potential career boost. Thus, such an invitation might seem flattering and an opportunity to good to miss. A way to show that he or she is a capable and independent academic.
Final thoughts
Most academics go to conferences for a combination of presenting their work to get critical feedback, making new contacts, sharing ideas and to be inspired. With such broad combination of motivating factors, the exact purpose of conferences is difficult to ascertain because there is no a priori agreed role and value of conferences (Nicolson, 2017a). 
However, there is evidence that academic conferences function to facilitate commodity transactions, be that knowledge, tools, skills, reputations, or connections, which reflects the neoliberal ethos in the modern academy (Nicolson 2017b). The predatory conference can be viewed in this light, where academia is more and more focused on generating revenue. It is at best scurrilous, and worst, criminal, for organisations to make money using such a confidence trick. Always check which conferences are organised and advertised by recognised scholarly organisations in your own discipline. If uncertain ask a more experienced academic, a senior colleague or mentor.
Donald J. Nicolson
(Health Services Researcher, NHS Fife, and Independent Scholar; twitter @_mopster )
Edwin R. van Teijlingen
(Centre Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)
References:
Moital, M. (2014) Ten Signs of a Bogus/Fake Conference.
Grove, J. (2017) Predatory conferences ‘now outnumber official scholarly events’ (26th Oct.)
Nicolson, D.J. (2017a) Do conference presentations impact beyond the conference venue? Journal of Research in Nursing. 22(5), pp.422-425.
Nicolson, D.J. (2017b) Academic Conferences as Neoliberal Commodities, Palgrave Macmillan
Nobes, A. (2017) What are ‘predatory’ conferences and how can I avoid them?
van Teijlingen, E. (2014) Beware of rogue journals.
Congratulations to Dr. Pramod Regmi on the publication of his latest article ‘Local elections and community health care in Nepal’.[1] Pramod is our newly appointed Lecturer in International Health, who started this post exactly a month ago. The editorial, co-authored with BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada (based at Liverpool John Moores University), Nirmal Aryal (based at the University of Otago, New Zealand) and CMMPH’s Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, highlights the important link between local democracy and health in Nepal.
The paper argues that elected local governments are critical for public accountability on the operationalization of the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) at local level. Furthermore, having elected leaders in communities after such a long gap will certainly give Nepalese people rights and hopefully improve provision and access to health care services they are entitled to. Thus the role of civil society, community-based non-governmental organisation, development partners and the mass-media is critical in both advocacy for, and the effective monitoring and implementation of, local activities.
The paper appeared today in Health Prospect an Open Access journal published in English in Nepal as part of the Nepal Journals Online (NepJOL) service .
Reference
We know that public health works and thinks long-term. We’ll typically see the population benefits of reducing health risks such as tobacco use, obesity and high alcohol intake in ten or twenty years’ time. But we often forget that preceding public health research into the determinants of ill health and the possible public health solutions is also slow working. Evidence-based public health solutions can be unpopular with voters, politicians or commercial companies (or all). Hence these take time to get accepted by the various stakeholders and make their way into policies.
I was, therefore, glad to see that Scotland won the Supreme Court case today in favour of a minimum price for a unit of alcohol. As we know from the media, the court case took five years. Before that the preparation and drafting of the legislation took years, and some of the original research took place long before that. Together with colleagues at the Health Economic Research Unit at the University of Aberdeen, the University of York and Health Education Board for Scotland, we conducted a literature review on Effective & Cost-Effective Measures to Reduce Alcohol Misuse in Scotland as early as 2001 [1]. Some of the initial research was so long ago it was conducted for the Scottish Executive, before it was even renamed the Scottish Government.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
Reference:
Research started years ago! Ludbrook et al.(2002) Effective & Cost-Effective Measures to Reduce Alcohol Misuse in Scotland: Lit Review, HERU, Univ. of Aberdeen. [ISBN: 0755932803] http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1124/0052548.pdf
Ms. Sheetal Sharma who will be graduating from Bournemouth University with a Ph.D. on November 10th has been awarded Bournemouth University’s The Postgraduate Research Prize. This prize is for the postgraduate student whose achievement is deemed by the Vice-Chancellor to have been most outstanding in their time at BU.
Sheetal stood out as a Ph.D. student as her maternal health research project in Nepal resulted in several many publications [1-6], some in very prestigious journals such as BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth [4] and PLOSOne [5] . She won the best poster prize at the international GLOW conference in Birmingham in 2013 with the poster presentation ‘Getting women to care in Nepal: A Difference in Difference analysis of a health promotion intervention’. She won a SBSP travel scholarship to present a poster at the 8th European Congress on Tropical Medicine & International Health in 2013 in Denmark. Sheetal’s abstract of the poster was also officially published [7].
Sheetal presented at the Science in Society conference (SiS) at Berkeley University in November 2012 where she received a Graduate Scholar Award. In addition, she won a Santander travel scholarships for £5,000 to learn about research at the University of Buenos Aires, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness & Health Policy (Argentina) and at the University of Barcelona in Spain. This scholarship resulted in a great publication with the world-famous researcher in reproductive health care prof. Jose Belizan as co-author. Sheetal also presented her work at the first ever national health promotion conference in Nepal.
Sheetal also had less academic achievements as she won the BU photo competition at the 2014 PGR conference with the photo in this blog. 
Sheetal was also actively involved as a student representative in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences as well as in the Graduate School. She even found time to join the editorial board of the newly formed Journal of Asian Midwives.
Over the past five years Sheetal has had many mentions on this BU research blog as one of BU’s most prolific publishing PhD students.
As supervisors and co-authors we are proud of her!
Dr. Catherine Angell, Prof. Vanora Hundley & Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (CMMPH)
BU Visiting Professor Padam Simkhada, Liverpool John Moores University
Dr. Elisa Sicuri, Assistant Research Professor at ISGlobal, Spain
Prof. Jose Belizan, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
References to published work by Sheetal Sharma:
Congratulations to Dr. Sue Way and Prof. Vanora Hundley in BU’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) on their latest publication on the latent phase of labour. Their paper ‘Defining the latent phase of labour: is it important?’ appeared in Evidence Based Midwifery and was written with midwifery colleagues across the UK, Germany and Canada [1].
Congratulations
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
Reference:
BU staff can login below:
New weight change BU paper
One week to go! | The 16th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference
Geography and Environmental Studies academics – would you like to get more involved in preparing our next REF submission?
Congratulations to three former BU staff
MSCA Staff Exchanges 2024 Call – internal deadline
Applications are now open for 2025 ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowships!
Horizon Europe – ERC CoG and MSCA SE webinars MSCA Staff Exchanges 2024 Call – internal deadline Horizon Europe – ERC CoG and MSCA SE webinars
MaGMap: Mass Grave Mapping
ERC grants – series of webinars Last reminder – MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2024 internal deadline next week
Research Information Network