Tagged / CMMPH

The portrayal of childbirth in the mass media

Fusion

Marilyn Cash from HSC’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health recently delivered a paper on the Portrayal of Childbirth in the Mass Media, at the Reimagining Birth International Research Symposium held at the Humanities Institute University College Dublin, Ireland.  The research symposium brought together academics, medics and artists from around the world to explore how childbirth has been portrayed/represented/imagined in the worlds of art and medicine. 

The symposium provided an opportunity for contemporary critical debates into the visual culture of childbirth.  This was a unique opportunity for researchers and practitioners to explore/discuss the visual and sensorial culture of birth, and to contribute to our reimagining of this fundamental personal life experience for mother and child.  Central to the vision of the symposium is the ambition to build connections between interested parties, providing a forum for transcending current knowledge silos and contributing to innovative change in this important personal/cultural domain of human experience.

The paper is part of an ongoing collaboration between academics in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health and the Media School and the University of Stirling, exploring the medicalisation of childbirth.  As a direct result of the symposium academics from the group have been invited to present at the Perinatal Care Online Conference to be held in November 2013. For further information please contact a member of the Media and Childbirth research team (which includes: Prof Vanora Hundley: vhundley@bournemouth.ac.uk, Prof Edwin van Teijlingen: evteijlingen@bournemouth.ac.uk, Dr Ann Luce: aluce@bournemouth.ac.uk, Dr Marilyn Cash: mcash@bournemouth.ac.uk , Prof Helen Cheyne: h.l.cheyne@stir.ac.uk, Dr Catherine Angell: cangell@bournemouth.ac.uk .

I’ll bet you it’s a baby!

 

 

The new royal baby has been born.  Good news for Kate and William and also for the betting shops.  Apparently a large number of people bet on a girl being born on the estimated due date July 13th, and the punters seem to believe the gender would be female.  As a consequence, a large amount of money was made by UK betting shops.   The next bet is, of course, on his name.  Some websites seem to suggest the bookmakers favoured the name James, such as a website in the Netherlands (http://wereldnieuws.blog.nl/politiek/2013/07/19/britse-baby-kan-nu-ieder-moment-komen).  A Canadian website suggested a few days before the birth that “James or George were the favourites” for a boy (http://o.canada.com/2013/07/17/escape-from-royal-baby-media-circus-leads-to-londons-betting-shops/.  On the webpages of one of the UK’s larger betting shops today’s  (22nd July) top 13 boys’ names were: George, James, Alexander, Louis, Arthur, Henry, Phillip, Albert, Spencer, David, Thomas, Richard & Edward.

 

Betting on aspects of the royal birth and baby is a way of being involved in the same way that betting on your football team to win its first away-game of the season is part of being a supporter for some.  Luckily, there are many more options to waste your money, punters can also put money on the colour of his hair, baby’s first word, and if you want to wait a little longer for your money:  the name of his first love, age of first nightclub visit photograph, first official visit overseas, whether the prince will ever compete in the Olympics, and the university where he will study.

 

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

School of Health & Social Care

Bournemouth University, UK

 

 

 

 

 

Keeping abreast of new research in infant feeding

PG research

The Nutrition and Nurture in Infancy and Childhood Conference, providing an international interdisciplinary arena, offered the ideal opportunity for us to present infant feeding research and teaching materials developed at BU. With a wide range of research studies presented over the course of three days, we were able to absorb new and innovative research enhancing our understanding of socio-cultural, political and economic influences upon infant and child feeding practices both in the UK and across the world.

Alison presented for the first time preliminary findings of her PhD research study, which is exploring women’s experience of breastfeeding using video diaries. She used video clips to illustrate the daily struggles some women faced and the roller coaster ride that inevitably ensued over the first few weeks following birth, which brought the audience close to tears. The novel research method and opportunity to see and hear women’s diaries generated good discussion and also identified links with findings from other research being presented at the conference.

Dr Catherine Angell sharing research with conference delegates

 

Catherine presented a poster of research which found that coverage of infant feeding in national newspapers in England over a one month period in 2011 was ‘bad news for breastfeeding’ because of the many negative connotations linked with breastfeeding compared to formula feeding. This created a good deal of interest and debate about the effects of media on the culture of infant feeding in the UK.

 

 

And we both presented a poster promoting BURP for infant feeding, an online resource that we have developed at BU to support student midwives and health practitioners in their professional practice to provide better care for mothers and babies. This poster provided the ideal opportunity for delegates to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of online distance learning as well as promoting the package itself.

Alison Taylor and Dr Catherine Angell promote 'BURP for infant feeding'

Running over three days, the conference enabled us to maximise networking opportunities with national and international colleagues in research, education and professional practice. These strong links will no doubt continue for some time providing us with opportunities for further collaboration.

Joint PhD studentships: an example of FUSION in practice.

Fusion, PG research

For many clinicians undertaking a PhD means choosing to either give up clinical practice for a period of time or studying on top of an already demanding full-time job. Now a partnership between the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust (PHT) is making it easier for midwives to undertake a doctorate while still maintaining their clinical skills. The team has developed a novel joint studentship that will allow midwives to combine clinical practice with a research role, working across BU and PHT. The studentships will run for four years and PhD students will spend two days per week working as a midwife in clinical practice and three days per week working on their thesis. This set up facilitates the co-creation of knowledge.

In addition to providing the individual midwives with excellent education, these studentships are designed to examine an area of clinical practice identified by PHT where the evidence is lacking and research is needed. As a consequence the research studies will be directly relevant to practice and will have a demonstrable impact in the future. Hence BU will be able to show that its research and education have a direct benefit to the wider society. Finally, the studentships benefit midwifery practice by building a critical mass of researchers, which will help translate research findings into practice and so create a culture of evidence-based practice.

The result is a studentship that truly fuses research, education and practice.

The CMMPH/PHT partnership has developed three matched-funded PhD studentships for midwives, which will begin in September 2013. These joint PhD studentships will be supervised by both BU academics (Sue Way, Catherine Angell, Carol Wilkins, Maggie Hutchings, Edwin van Teijlingen & Vanora Hundley) and supervisors from PHT based in practice.  We are excited about this novel approach to PhD studentships and hope that we will have many more studentships with other NHS Trusts in the future.

For further information please contact Prof. Vanora Hundley or Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen.

Research Ethics: Insights from the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health and the Centre for Social Work, Sociology & Social Policy

PG research, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

Ethics contributions

Collage of research ethics contributions

Academics based in HSC have experience in a wide-range of research.  In the process of reflecting on all aspects of the research process several members of HSC have published about ethical issues that they have had to address in their own research.    This BU Blog highlights some of these key HCS papers which may help fellow academics and students across the globe address similar ethical questions.  HSC has a history of publishing on research ethics, Professor Emerita Immy Holloway wrote about the researcher who may have a dual role, or even conflicting role, as researcher and health care professional (1).  More recently, several midwifery researchers in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health wrote about the issues facing practitioners doing research in the field where they work, especially concerning the similarities and differences between professional ethics and research ethics (2-3).  Negotiating ethical paths cleaved by competing concerns between protecting research participants and over-managing the ethical process is tricky.

In her book Rainforest Asylum: The enduring legacy of colonial psychiatric care in Malaysia Dr. Ashencaen Crabtree in the Centre for Social Work, Sociology & Social Policy, addresses the problematic issue of gate-keepers in research together with the ethics of critical observation of abuse (potential or actual), as well as the ethics of advocating on behalf of research participants (4).

The fear that the ethical application process in the UK is becoming more and more cumbersome and bureaucratic has been widely recognised as highlighted by Prof. van Teijlingen and colleagues (5-6).

Research ethics review processes are also considered in terms of access to participants regarded as ‘vulnerable’ in a recently published paper by Dr. Ashencaen Crabtree (7) of ethnographers working in health settings who are seeking to understand the context of care and patient/service user experiences.  She concludes that paternalistic control of participation on the grounds of ethical protection of vulnerable people seriously disenfranchises potential participants in preventing them from being able to share their relevant, lived experiences as recipients of service provision.

Prof. van Teijlingen and BU Visiting Fellow Dr. Padam Simkhada highlighted that the social, cultural and economic contexts in which research is conducted often differ between developing and developed countries.  However they stress that researchers need to apply for research ethics approval to the relevant local authority, if national legislation requires one to do so (8).

A new and challenging area of research is the use of discussion boards as a source of research data.  In their paper Dr. Bond and BU colleagues discuss both practical and ethical dilemmas that arise in using such data (9). In earlier research, Prof. Parker of the Centre for Social Work, Sociology & Social Policy, highlighted some of the benefits and dangers of using email and the Internet for research as the potential for electronic media continues its rapid growth (10).

Obtaining informed consent is something that all researchers need to consider. However, in some research situations obtaining consent can be particularly challenging.  Prof. Hundley and colleagues discuss the ethical challenges involved in conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial, where consent needs to be considered at a number of levels (11).  In a second paper issues of consent during pregnancy, where there is the potential for harm to two participants, are considered (12).

In research into the implications of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for social research, Prof. Parker explored the contested meanings and difficulties associated with informed consent in social research, highlighting some of the challenges raised by an almost unquestioned acceptance of biomedical research ethics in social research and questioning whether potential ‘harm’ is different in this context (13, 14). This research has led to further explorations of the potential for ethical covert research by Prof. Parker and Dr. Ashencaen Crabtree.

 

The way forward

There a plenty of challenges to research ethics in both the health and social care sectors.  Ethical considerations relate to technological developments such conducting research over the Internet or the analysis of tweets.  HSC staff will continue to publish on a range of moral dilemma as well as practical issues related to research ethics.  Moreover, academic from the two centres are planning a Masterclass on research ethics to be held in early 2014.

 

 

References

  1. Holloway, I., Wheeler, S. (1995) Ethical Issues in Qualitative Nursing Research, Nursing Ethics 2: 223-232.   Web address:  http://nej.sagepub.com/content/2/3/223.full.pdf+html
  2. Ryan, K., Brown, B., Wilkins, C., Taylor, A., Arnold, R., Angell, C., van Teijlingen, E. (2011) Which hat am I wearing today? Practicing midwives doing research, Evidence-Based Midwifery 9(1): 4-8.
  3. van Teijlingen, E.R., Cheyne, H.L. (2004) Ethics in midwifery research, RCM Midwives Journal 7 (5): 208-10.
  4. Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2012) Rainforest Asylum: The enduring legacy of colonial psychiatric care in Malaysia, London: Whiting & Birch.
  5. van Teijlingen, E., Douglas, F., Torrance, N. (2008) Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research? BMC Public Health 8(396)                            Web address: www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-8-396.pdf
  6. van Teijlingen, E. (2006) Reply to Robert Dingwall’s Plenary ‘Confronting the Anti-Democrats: The unethical Nature of Ethical Regulation in Social Science, MSo (Medical Sociology online) 1: 59-60  Web address:  www.medicalsociologyonline.org/archives/issue1/pdf/reply_rob.pdf
  7. Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2013) Research ethics approval processes and the moral enterprise of ethnography. Ethics & Social Welfare. Advance Access: DOI:10.1080/17496535.2012.703683
  8. van Teijlingen E.R., Simkhada, P.P. (2012) Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional, Journal of Medical Ethics 38 :428-430.
  9. Bond, C.S,  Ahmed, O.H., Hind, M, Thomas, B., Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2013) The Conceptual and Practical Ethical Dilemmas of Using Health Discussion Board Posts as Research Data, Journal of Medical Internet Research 15(6):e112)  Web address: http://www.jmir.org/2013/6/e112/
  10. Parker, J.  (2008) Email, ethics and data collection in social work research: some reflections from a research project, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate & Practice, 4 (1): 75-83.
  11. Hundley, V, Cheyne, HC, Bland, JM, Styles, M, Barnett, CA.. (2010) So you want to conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial? Lessons from a national cluster trial of early labour, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16: 632-638
  12. Helmreich, R.J., Hundley, V., Norman, A., Ighedosa, J., Chow, E. (2007) Research in pregnant women: the challenges of informed consent, Nursing for Women’s Health 11(6):  576-585.
  13. Parker, J., Penhale, B., Stanley, D., 2010. Problem or safeguard? Research ethics review in social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Social Care & Neurodisability, 1 (2): 22-32.
  14. Parker, J., Penhale, B., Stanley, D. (2011) Research ethics review: social care and social science research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Ethics & Social Welfare, 5(4): 380-400.

 

Vanora Hundley, Sara Ashencaen Crabtree, Jonathan Parker & Edwin van Teijlingen

 

 

Comment on BU Blog leads to academic publication

Guidance, PG research, Publishing

Authorship differs between disciplines

Paper by Hundley et al. published 2013

Last year Prof. Matthew Bennett1 raised some interesting issues about academic authorship on this award-winning BU Blog.  Authorship is an issue that many academic colleague see as challenging.   On September 27th, 2012 two of us replied to this blog by adding some of our own observations on the web. 2   Having penned our online comments we discussed the issue with BU Visiting Faculty Dr. Padam Simkhada Senior Lecturer in International Health at ScHARR, University of Sheffield (www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/ph/staff/profiles/padamsimkhada).  Between the three of us we came to the conclusion that the issue of academic authorship can be very confusing as well as tricky.

 

We discussed a wide-range of issues around academic authorship, including who should be an author and who should not be so, the order of authors, and that there are different conventions between different academic disciplines.  Being academic we rapidly came to the conclusion that there was a paper in this.  We drafted our ideas, searched the literature for other discussions on authorship, general guidelines on authorship, etc.   We wrote the paper and submitted it to the academic journal Health Renaissance; an Open-Access journal, which is freely available world-wide.  The editor liked it and published our paper ‘Academic authorship: who, why and in what order?’ this month as a guest editorial. 3

 

 

We would like to highlight that there are two separate messages in the publication of this paper.  The first message is about academic scholarship; some of our colleagues may find the content of this paper is a useful guide in deciding authorship order, or at least in helping to open the debate about who should be included as co-author and who is not eligible.  The second message is more about academic citizenship, namely that messages on the BU Blog and even comments in reply to other people’s messages may contain useful information to the wider academic community and should be taken further.  Our message here is don’t see the BU Blog as an end point, see it as a stepping stone to the wider academic world!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen*, Prof. Vanora Hundley* & Dr. Padam Simkhada**

* Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health, HSC, Bournemouth University

** ScHARR, The University of Sheffield

 

References:

1.      Bennett, M. (2012) What’s in a list?, BU Research Blog, http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/2012/09/27/whats-in-a-list/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

 

2.      Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2012) Response to What’s in a list?, http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/2012/09/27/whats-in-a-list/#comment-17234

 

3.      Hundley, V., van Teijlingen,      E., Simkhada, P. (2013) Academic authorship: who, why and in what order? Health Renaissance 11      (2):98-101  www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Download/vol-11-2/Page_99_101_Editorial.pdf

PechaKucha – presenting research in a fast and furious manner!

The Normal Labour and Birth Conference allowed me to experience a novel way of showcasing research and exchanging ideas – the PechaKucha. Pronounced “peh-chak-cha”, the PechaKucha session is made up of a series of short presentations. Presenters must use 20 slides, each of which must be displayed for exactly 20 seconds – no more, no less. The concept, conceived by two young architects (Astrid Klein and Mark Dytham) in Japan in 2003, is to enable individuals to exchange their ideas in a fast moving, concise and exciting format. Not one to ignore the call to try something new, I decided to undertake this challenge as a double act with my colleague Professor Helen Cheyne from the University of Stirling. We presented our team’s work on the media’s portrayal of labour and birth, which was also being displayed as a poster.

Poster
Research team includes Ann Luce, Marilyn Cash, Vanora Hundley, Helen Cheyne, Edwin van Teijlingen and Catherine Angell

The PechaKucha was quite an undertaking, as the slides move automatically and you cannot stop them moving on! However, it really focused the mind and helped us identify the key messages from our work. The session was very lively and the energy generated a lot of discussion that continued into the coffee break afterwards. As for the PechaKucha method, I’d say that it is definitely a useful tool for our community research meetings, and perhaps also for our doctoral students to use as they prepare for their vivas.

The conference was also an opportunity to catch up with colleagues from the International Early Labour Research Group. The group have been involved in producing a series of research papers featured in a special issue of Midwifery. We also discussed future research and opportunities for research collaboration.

Publish empirical or experimental data early whilst letting theory mature?

PG research, Publishing, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Training

My colleagues and I have written several papers to help budding researchers about the process of writing and publishing academic papers (Hundley, & van Teijlingen 2002; van Teijlingen 2004; Pitchforth et al. 2005; van Teijlingen et al. 2012; Simkhada et al. 2013). For all researchers – students and staff alike publishing research findings is important as new insights will add to the existing knowledge base, advance the academic discipline and, in the case of applied research, perhaps improve something in the lives of others such as, well-being, the economy or the environment. Apart from this general/altruistic drive to add to knowledge, the advice academics give our postgraduate students is: to get your study published as soon as possible. The two main reasons for publishing early are: (a) getting into print to potentially help your careers; and (b) staking once claim as an authority in the field and/or publishing your findings before someone else does.
As always there are exceptions to the rule. As academics we agree that trying to get into print early is a good personal strategy for an early researcher or a postgraduate student especially for those working with empirical or experimental data. However, occasionally it is better to wait and give the underlying idea in the paper time to develop and mature. The kind of paper that often improves with time is one based on theory. Let me share a personal example: a theoretical paper from my PhD (awarded by the University of Aberdeen in 1994). This paper started life as a theory chapter in my PhD thesis (van Teijlingen 1994). This chapter on models of maternity care was not the strongest part of my thesis and it took me another decade of fine-tuning to get it into a state worth publishing. The paper ‘A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth’ was finally published in Sociological Research Online, the original online-only Sociology journal in the world (van Teijlingen 2005). The wait was worthwhile as the paper is today (May 2013), eight year after publication, the seventh ‘most viewed articles during the past eight weeks’ in the journal (see: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/stats/top20.html).
In conclusion, it is generally sound advice to new researchers and postgraduate students to publish early. Occasionally though, waiting and giving your paper time to improve through discussion with colleagues, presenting the ideas at conferences and on blogs may lead to a better final product.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health
School of Health & Social Care

References
Hundley, V., van Teijlingen E. (2002) How to decide where to send an article for publication? Nursing Standard 16(36): 21.
van Teijlingen (1994) A social or medical comparison of childbirth? : comparing the arguments in Grampian (Scotland) and the Netherlands (PhD thesis), Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. Available online in the British Library (search for: uk.bl.ethos.387237 ).
Teijlingen van, E. (2004) Why I can’t get any academic writing done, Medical Sociology News 30 (3): 62-6.
van Teijlingen, E. (2005) A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth, Sociological Research Online 10(2) Freely available online at: www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/teijlingen.html.
Pitchforth, E., Porter, M., Teijlingen van, E.R., Forrest Keenan, K. (2005) Writing up and presenting qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31 (2): 132-135.
Teijlingen van, E., Simkhada. P.P., Simkhada, B., Ireland, J. (2012) The long and winding road to publication, Nepal Journal Epidemiology 2(4): 213-215. http://nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/7093
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2013) Writing an academic paper for publication, Health Renaissance 11 (1): 1-5. www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Pp_1_5_Guest_Editorial.pdf

Does Guinness taste different in Dublin?

In August 2012 a call was put out through the midwifery networks by the Preterm Birth Clinical Study Group (CSG) who were seeking to recruit new members. The Preterm Birth CSG aims to identify important research questions around preterm birth and to work with the originators of supported studies around preterm birth, and to improve clinical outcomes following preterm birth by prevention or intervention.

This group, one of 11 CSGs, is a Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (RCOG) specialist group supported by British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society (BMFMS), British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) and by Action Medical Research. Applications were welcomed from obstetricians, neonatologists and midwives who were interested in preventing preterm birth or in improving outcomes. I (Luisa Cescutti-Butler) was successful in my application and attended my first meeting on the 23rd April 2013 in Dublin.

Most of us were new to the group and following introductions we set to business. An urgent consideration was the representation of lay members. There were a number of suggestions put forward as to how lay members could be approached and groups such as MumsNet, Bliss and Bounty were to be approached for their views on research priorities within preterm birth. The group also felt that establishing a focus group of women who had experienced a preterm birth would be valuable and I offered to facilitate this.

A number of research projects were discussed and whilst many of these studies were focused on RCT’s and not within my comfort zone, I was able to provide input into some where a qualitative approach would work. Many of the professors around the table were comfortable with scientific methodologies, but were open to the possibilities of where proposed projects might benefit from a qualitative perspective, i.e. inviting women to speak about their experiences of possible interventions to prevent preterm birth.

Following the Preterm Birth Clinical Study Group meeting on the 23rd April 2013, I was fortunate to attend on the following two days a conference arranged by the British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society (BMFMS) of which I am a member. The programme, which consisted of high quality clinical and basic science key lectures and presentations were fascinating for me as a midwife, although I did feel at various points throughout the two days that if it were left to ‘science’, women would never have an opportunity to have a normal pregnancy and birth. It appeared that every step of the childbirth continuum could be researched, with outcomes managed in some way because of ‘evidence,’ which for some women who experience life threatening conditions such as pre-eclampsia is of vital importance. In the event, I was able to gain information that would benefit BU undergraduate midwifery students. At the end of the conference I was in awe of all the high quality research being undertaken in the UK to prevent preterm birth and obstetric conditions such as pre-eclampsia, but also a little sad. Sad at the prospect that if midwives don’t continue to protect normality for women, it might fall forever within the realms of ‘medicine’ and who knows where pregnant women will end up? And finally in conclusion, I never did get to taste a Guinness in one of the many traditional Irish Pubs scattered around the city, so couldn’t say whether it tasted better in Dublin or not!

BU and University of Ljubljana working together to enhance midwifery practice

Slovenia, once part of communist Yugoslavia, is now an independent country which borders Italy, Croatia, Austria and Hungary. It is a modern and young economy with a strong infrastructure.  Midwifery has been practised in the region for hundreds of years; however a decision to suspend midwifery training in the 1980s resulted in a severe shortage of midwives.  In 1996 midwifery education was reinstated, but this time within higher education. In 2002 the first midwives were able to qualify with a degree from the University of Ljubljana, which offers the only undergraduate midwifery programme in Slovenia.

The role of the midwife in Slovenia is mainly concentrated within the area of intrapartum care; a consequence of the midwifery shortage that saw midwives drawn from other areas to cover labour and birth. Very little antenatal and postnatal care is offered by midwives. These aspects of care are typically provided by gynaecologists, obstetricians, paediatricians and community nurses. Thus there have been calls for midwives to increase their role within public health and to develop primary care services. One aspect of care that could develop midwifery practice is examination of the newborn.

A scoping visit funded by ERASMUS (British Council) and EUNF (Bournemouth University) was undertaken by Luisa Cescutti-Butler (Senior Lecturer) and Professor Vanora Hundley at the behest of the Head of Midwifery Dr. Ana Polona Misvek at the University of Ljubljana. The visit explored whether midwives, paediatricians, neonatologists and midwifery lecturers would be receptive to a course that would teach Slovenian midwives to examine normal healthy term babies. This examination is currently only undertaken by paediatricians.

A round table discussion was arranged with key professionals from the medical and midwifery community. The discussion was at times fairly animated; for example there was strong opposition from the neonatologist who believed that midwives were not ready to take on this role. In contrast, there was encouraging agreement from Professor Dr. Ciril Kržišnik (Senior Paediatrician and Head of the Paediatric Association) who was present, and Anita Prelec (Head of the Slovenian Nursing/Midwifery Association).

A positive outcome was the desire from all professionals to strengthen the midwife’s role within the initial examination of the newborn and it is this aspect of care and knowledge that offers further opportunities for future collaboration and training.

For further details about this study contact: Luisa Cescuttti Butler, Senior Lecturer, Lansdowne Campus.

How’s our Slovene?

BU’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health was well represented at a recent conference run by the Midwifery Association of Slovenia in Čateẑ.  Professor Vanora Hundley and Luisa Cescutti Butler were invited by the President Anita Prelec to speak to midwives, nurses and students at their bi-annual conference: Skrb Za Dravje Žensk In Otrok.

I was asked to speak on the issue of intervention in early labour, something that is causing concern in many European countries, and whether midwives should be encouraging women to stay at home for longer. I started my session with a tentative “Dober dan” (Good morning) – my pronunciation must have been acceptable as I received a round of applause! However, the rest of my presentation was thankfully in English. The presentation was well received and clearly generated a lot of interest with discussion continuing over lunch.

Luisa, a senior lecturer in midwifery, spoke about the examination of the newborn baby and who should be involved – the midwife or the doctor. This was a question that we had discussed the previous day at a round table event with key stakeholders in Slovenia. Her presentation also gave us the opportunity to ask midwives what they thought. Participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire before the presentation and a second brief questionnaire afterwards. We are looking forward to seeing their responses – although we will rely heavily on colleagues from the University of Ljubljana to translate them!

Funding for our Slovenian trip was through networking grants – an EUNF award for Vanora to discuss research collaboration and an ERASMUS Preparatory Visit award for Luisa to explore the possibility of a staff mobility exchange. We both achieved these aims (more on that in our next blog), but this additional opportunity was too good to miss.

Realities of fieldwork: Sheetal Sharma, HSC PhD student on fieldwork in rural Nepal.

PG research

(c) Sheetal Sharma

Open air focus group in rural Nepal, (c) Sheetal Sharma 2013.


Roosters crowing, cows mooing, bleating goats, birds chirping, mobile phones ringing, children screaming, laughing and running around while women, breastfeeding, talk over one another excitedly in the sun as they need to leave us soon to drop the children off to school and/or head to the field to cultivate the season’s crop this spring it is wheat, last summer, rice. Women do this work as most of their husbands are away in the capital, Kathmandu or in the Arab Gulf. This is the reality of conducting focus groups in rural Nepal.

Although we, as researchers, spend considerable time to perfect the ideal ‘tool’ of the interview schedule and imagine the transcription clear and the background; a researcher must be prepared for every eventuality. Noise, din and interruptions: Today a dog nibbled on a nearby goat and a few men kept creeping to listen in why was this videshi (foreigner) recording conversations and making notes. The women shooed them away as today was a discussion on contraception; also that the discussion of the focus groups should be in ‘controlled environment’, safe, quiet; and in Nepal where women are not the main decision-maker for their reproductive health, it should mean a lieu women should be able to discuss freely these issues. In this Green Tara’s (www.greentaratrust.com) intervention area, which my PhD, supervised at HSC BU by Catherine Angell, Vanora Hundley, Edwin van Teijlingen and University of Sheffield’s Padam Simkhada, aims to evaluate both quantitatively and qualitatively, shows one the decision-making outcomes improved: increased the use of contraception in the Pharping area from 4.3% (2008) to 24.6% (2012) after 5 years of health promotion conducted by two auxiliary nurse-midwives.
40 minutes later recording (with 2 digital recorders) and once the demographic data and recording is double-checked and any last questions answered we set off walking 2 hours downhill visiting a tea-shop on the way for a cup of chai.

Edwin van Teijlingen and Emma Pitchforth, Qualitative Research: Focus group research in family planning and reproductive health care J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006;32:1 30-32doi:10.1783/147118906775275299
http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/32/1/30.citation

BU research to feature in BJOG’s international Twitter Journal Club

A recent paper by Professor Vanora Hundley is receiving significant interest and is to feature in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology’s Twitter Journal Club. For the last two years the BJOG has provided questions and slide sets to help readers evaluate selected papers in their local Journal Club. However, the introduction of the new Twitter Journal Club allows readers across the world to engage in online critical review and discussion. In addition to the paper, participants are provided with a scenario, background to the clinical issue, helpful details about the paper and discussion points. Journal club members participate in the discussion via Twitter using a specified hashtag (#BlueJC).  The discussion session starts on 20 March 2013 at 17:00 GMT and is open to anyone to join. For further details see: http://www.bjog.org/details/news/4459851/Blue_JC.html