Tagged / applied research

New BU women’s health publication

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, Postgraduate Research, Publishing, Research news, student research, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to Karim Khaled on the publication in the international journal Nutrients of his latest women’s health paper  [1].  The paper ‘A Structural Equation Modelling Approach to Examine the Mediating Effect of Stress on Diet in Culturally Diverse Women of Childbearing Age’ is co-authored with his PhD supervisors Dr. Fotini Tsofliou and Prof. Vanora Hundley.

This paper in Nutrients  is Open Access, hence available to read to anybody across the globe with internet access.

 

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

 

Reference:

  1. Khaled, K., Tsofliou, F., Hundley, V.A. A Structural Equation Modelling Approach to Examine the Mediating Effect of Stress on Diet in Culturally Diverse Women of Childbearing Age. Nutrients. 2024; 16(19):3354. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16193354

Congratulations to Heidi Singelton & Steve Ersser

BU research, Publishing, Research news, writing

In late August Heidi Singleton led the publication of a Cochrane Systematic Review under the title ‘Educational and psychological interventions for managing atopic dermatitis (eczema)’ [1].  The team conducting this review includes BU’s Prof. Steve Ersser, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust colleagues Dr. Andrew Hodder, former BU staff Prof. Vanessa Heaslip (currently at the University of Salford), and one of my co-authors on a previous project Dr. Dwayne Boyers from the Health Economics Research Unit at the University of Aberdeen.

In their review the authors conclude that in-person, individual education, as an adjunct to conventional topical therapy, may reduce short-term eczema signs compared to standard care, but there is no information on eczema symptoms, quality of life or long-term outcomes. Group education probably reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the long term and may also improve quality of life in the short term. Favourable effects were also reported for technology-mediated education, habit reversal treatment and arousal reduction therapy. All favourable effects are of uncertain clinical significance, since they may not exceed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the outcome measures used.  Finally, they found no trials of self-help psychological interventions, psychological therapies or printed education. Future trials should include more diverse populations, address shared priorities, evaluate long-term outcomes and ensure patients are involved in trial design.

 

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH

Reference:

  1. Singleton, H., Hodder, A., Almilaji, O., Ersser, S. J., Heaslip, V., O’Meara, S., Boyers, D., Roberts, A., Scott, H., Van Onselen, J., Doney, L., Boyle, R. J., & Thompson, A. R. (2024). Educational and psychological interventions for managing atopic dermatitis (eczema). The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 8(8), CD014932. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014932.pub2

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

It is all about experience

BU research, Delicious links, Featured academics, international, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, Publishing, research methods, student research, Uncategorized, Women's Academic Network, writing

This week we published a paper on the experience of conducting fieldwork in the public health field in the Journal of Health Promotion. [1] Fieldwork is usually a crucial part of PhD research, not only in the health field. However, few researchers write about this, often challenging, process. This paper highlights various occasions where fieldwork in the area of public health, health promotion or community health was more difficult than expected or did not go as planned. Our reflections on working in the field are aimed at less experienced researchers to support them in their research development. Moreover, this paper is also calling upon health researchers to share more details about the process of doing fieldwork and its trials and tribulations. Our key advice is to be inquisitive and open-minded around fieldwork, followed by: be prepared for your fieldwork, conduct a risk assessment of what might go wrong, and consider your resources and options to overcome such trials and tribulations. Fieldwork can be unpredictable.  We believe it is important to share practical lessons from the field which helps other to better understand these tribulations, and learn from them. Finally, sharing such information may guide new researchers and help them identify strategies that can address those issues and challenges in their future studies.

Dr. Preeti Mahato (at Royal Holloway, University of London), Dr Bibha Simkhada and Prof. Padam Simkhada (both based at the University of Huddersfield) are all BU Visiting Faculty.  Moreover, I have had the pleasure of acting as PhD supervisor for five of my co-authors.  I have included in this blog what is probably my favourite fieldwork photo taken a decade ago by former BU PhD student Dr. Sheetal Sharma.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

References:

  1. Mahato, P., Tamang, P., Simkhada, B., Wasti, S. P., Devkota, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Reflections on health promotion fieldwork in Nepal: Trials and tribulations. Journal of Health Promotion 10(1): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v10i1.50978

Student nurses experience ‘DEALTS2’ dementia training

BU research, COVID-19, Impact, innovation, Training, Uncategorized

On 8th July a group of 33 first year undergraduate nursing students attended a dementia themed workshop, led by Dr Michelle Heward from the Ageing and Dementia Research Centre (ADRC), to gain insight into the lived experience of dementia. The day included an Alzheimer’s Society Dementia Friends session and simulation activities from the Dementia Education And Learning Through Simulation 2 (DEALTS2) programme, including the A Walk Through Dementia virtual reality app.

DEALTS2 uses an experiential learning approach to put trainees into the ‘shoes of a person with dementia’ to gain an insight into how the condition impacts on the person. In 2017, Health Education England commissioned the ADRC team to replace their original DEALTS programme with a new and improved version aligned to the learning outcomes of the national Dementia Training Standards Framework. Our research demonstrates that the training programme is being used nationally in acute care settings and has effectively increased trainer knowledge of dementia and confidence to utilise innovative training approaches (Heward et al., 2021). On the day it was great to see the students engaging positively with the innovative training approaches to gain a unique understanding of the lived experience of dementia.

The dementia day is part of a simulation programme being delivered by the Clinical Skills Nursing team at Bournemouth University. The simulation programme has been designed and created in response to a current shortage of nursing placements due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The placement has allowed the students access to varying specialist nurses and healthcare providers, from Nutrition Nurse specialists to Advanced Clinical Practitioner nurses working within the Air ambulance service, giving the students access that they may not have encountered within their practice.

Publication success BU postgraduate researchers

BU research, PG research, Research news, student research, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Bournemouth University researchers Adam Spacey, Orlanda Harvey and Chloe Casey on the acceptance of their research paper ‘Postgraduate researchers’ experiences of accessing participants via gatekeepers: ‘Wading through treacle!’’ [1]  The study is partly based on their experiences as postgraduate researchers interacting with gatekeepers which they used to design an online questionnaire for postgraduate researchers. The results of the survey highlighted that postgraduate researchers face a range of challenges when using gatekeepers to access participants for studies, and that there is a negative emotional impact arising when challenges are faced. Thematic analysis revealed six themes  (1) Access to participants; (2) Relationships; (3) Perceptions of research; (4) Context for gatekeepers; (5) Emotional impact; and (6) Mechanisms to address challenges.  This paper is forthcoming in the Journal of Further and Higher Education (published by Taylor & Francis).

 

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

Reference:

  1. Spacey, A., Harvey, O., Casey, C. (2020) Postgraduate researchers’ experiences of accessing participants via gatekeepers: ‘Wading through treacle!’, Journal of Further and Higher Education (accepted)

AI & Robotics Sandpit: 24/5/17 – 14:30-17:00

BU research, Business Engagement, Events, RKE development framework

A Sandpit focused on “AI & Robotics”  will take place immediately following the Royal Society visit to BU on 24/5/17 – 14:30-17:00.

Speakers will include Vicky Isley and Paul Smith (boredomresearch). They will present a new vision for technological innovation, one that embraces emotion in a-life systems and recognises the fragility of their sustaining environment. boredomresearch will discuss their collaboration with the Artificial Life Lab (Karl Franzens University, Graz Austria), who are employing bio-inspired robots to provide solutions operating in human polluted environments.

So, is this just networking?

Definitely not! It is a facilitated session with the primary intention of developing innovative research ideas, which also enables the development of networks. It gives you the opportunity to explore research ideas which you may develop over time, together with the chance to find common ground with academics from across BU and beyond.

Which means…?

We’re seeking to come up with novel research that could part of a proposal to funding streams such as the Royal Society or the Industrial Challenge Fund that will focus on “AI” and/or “Robotics”.

So, who should attend?

We want anyone who thinks they might have something to contribute. We will also be inviting relevant external attendees to contribute to the day.

What do I need to prepare in advance? What will the programme entail?

Absolutely nothing in advance. During the session, you’ll be guided through a process which results in the development of research ideas. The process facilitates creativity, potentially leading to innovative and interdisciplinary research ideas. These ideas will be explored with other attendees, and further developed based on the feedback received.

What if I don’t have time to think about ideas in advance?

You don’t need to do this but it will help. Attendees will come from a range of backgrounds so we expect that there will be lively conversations resulting from these different perspectives.

What about afterwards? Do I need to go away and do loads of work?

Well… that depends! This interactive day will result in some novel research ideas. Some of these may be progressed immediately; others might need more time to develop. You may find common ground with other attendees which you choose to take forward in other ways, such as writing a paper or developing a new placement opportuntity.

What if my topic area is really specific, such as health and AI/Robotics?

Your contribution will be very welcome! One of the main benefits of this type of event is to bring together individuals with a range of backgrounds and specialisms who are able to see things just that bit differently to one another.

 

So, how do I book onto this event?

This event will take place on Wednesday, 24th May 2017. To book, please contact Dianne Goodman by end Wednesday, 10th May 2017 with your Name, Organisation and Research Interest(s).  All spaces will be confirmed by Monday 15th of May 2017.

This event is part of the new Research Knowledge Exchange Development Framework.

Science and Technology Committee – new inquiry – Bridging the “valley of death”: improving the commercialisation of research

Research news

This is a fantastic opportunity to have a say in improving the future commercialisation and application of research and influence policy, and fits in with the thought-leadership strand of BU’s new Vision & Values strategy.

Growth is at the heart of the Government’s economic agenda, and it has made clear the importance of the UK becoming a leader in sectors such as the life sciences and advanced manufacturing. The Government recently published an Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth, setting out how it will work with business and the knowledge base to underpin private sector led growth. In the same week, the Government published its strategy for the life sciences, outlining how the Government will take action to make the UK a world-leading place for life sciences investment.

A key recurring issue that has been raised in the Science and Technology Committee’s previous inquiries is the difficulty of translating research into commercial application, particularly the lack of funding—the so-called “valley of death”. The Committee has therefore agreed to conduct an inquiry into how the Government and other organisations can improve the commercialisation of research.

Terms of Reference – The Committee invites written submissions on the following questions:

1. What are the difficulties of funding the commercialisation of research, and how can they be overcome?

2. Are there specific science and engineering sectors where it is particularly difficult to commercialise research? Are there common difficulties and common solutions across sectors?

3. What, if any, examples are there of UK-based research having to be transferred outside the UK for commercialisation? Why did this occur?

4. What evidence is there that Government and Technology Strategy Board initiatives to date have improved the commercialisation of research?

5. What impact will the Government’s innovation, research and growth strategies have on bridging the valley of death?

6. Should the UK seek to encourage more private equity investment (including venture capital and angel investment) into science and engineering sectors and if so, how can this be achieved?

7. What other types of investment or support should the Government develop?

 

Submitting written evidence – The Committee invites written submissions on these issues by noon on Wednesday 8 February 2012.

Each submission should:

a) be no more than 3,000 words in length;

b) be in Word format with as little use of colour or logos as possible;

c) have numbered paragraphs; and

d) include a declaration of interests.

 

A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Bridging the “valley of death””. An additional paper copy should be sent in due course (not required by the deadline) to:

The Clerk

Science and Technology Committee

House of Commons

7 Millbank

London SW1P 3JA

 

Please note that:

• Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.

• Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.

• Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.

• Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.

More information on submitting evidence to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/take-part-in-committee-inquiries/witness/