Tagged / collaborative research

Successful event with senior policymakers in Nepal

international

Today, the last day of the Nepalese year 2079, we held a well attended event to discuss the preliminary findings of the interdisciplinary study of the impact of federalisation on health system in the country.  We invited policymakers and politicians from all three levels of government in the country to help the research team to analyse the large amount of high-quality data.  This meeting helped to validate the study results and guide our future capacity building as part of this project.  We were pleasantly surprised by the number who turned up and with their  active engagement!

One of the interesting comments made by the participants was that this was the first time that they had met with staff from differ levels to discuss the working of the system.  In fact, participants expressed that they wanted more opportunities to have this kind of discussions across all three levels of government. The researchers reported both positive and negative developments in the decentralized health system of Nepal.  Positive aspects included, for example, improvements in the availability of resources for health, the construction of new health posts and hospitals, better availability of essential medicines in many places.  We also commented on the positive management of COVID-19, compared to other many countries.  The policymakers from local, provincial and national level largely agreed with our findings and analyses.

This stakeholders’ event is part of the Nepal Federal Health System Project, our major collaborative project examining the consequences for the health system of Nepal’s move to a federal government structure in 2015.  This is a joint project (2020-2024) led by colleagues the University of Sheffield in collaboration with the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) Bournemouth University, the University of Huddersfield, with two partners in Nepal, namely Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) and PHASE Nepal.  This longitudinal interdisciplinary study is funded by the UK Health Systems Research Initiative [Grant ref. MR/T023554/1].

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

BU signs up to Jisc agreement with the American Psychological Association

Guidance, open access, REF Subjects, Research assessment, writing

BU authors can now publish OA for free in select journals with American Psychological Association. Read on to find out more!

Authors affiliated with UK institutions participating in APA’s Jisc agreement may publish open access in hybrid journals published by APA at no cost to the author, provided that:

  • The article’s corresponding author is affiliated with a participating institution’s UK campus.
  • The article is accepted after August 1, 2022.
  • The article is an original peer-reviewed research article or review article.

All articles under this agreement will be published under the CC-BY copyright license. Upon publication, articles will be made immediately open access.

You can find further information on how to submit an article for consideration and other key information, such as maximum number of articles, here.

As a reminder, BU holds a number of agreements with key publishers, many of which allow you to publish open access for free. You can read more about them here.

If you have any queries, please contact the Open Access team.

Dementia research in Nepal

international

Yesterday (April 11th) Dr. Bibha Simkhada presented key findings from our research project on ‘Cultural practice and policy in dementia care in Nepal’.  She spoke at the ‘Ninth National Summit of Health and Population Scientists in Nepal’.  This annual health summit in Kathmandu is organised by the NHRC (Nepal Health Research Council).  Dr. Simkhada, who is Visiting Faculty in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (FHSS), started this work whilst at Bournemouth University, before she moved to the University of Huddersfield to become a Senior Lecturer in Nursing.  This project is a cross-faculty collaboration with Dr. Shanti Shanker in the Department of Psychology.

This qualitative study comprising four face-to-face interviews and four focus groups with carers, health workers and other stakeholders.  The two key conclusion she presented are:

  • Stigma and stereotyping around dementia needs addressing. Nepal needs better policies, guidelines and service provision for people living with dementia and their carers.
  • There is need for inclusion of Dementia/Alzheimer education in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula of nurses, doctors and allied health professionals in Nepal.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

Conference presence in Nepal

international

Our study on the impact of federalism on the health system in Nepal got great coverage at the ‘Ninth National Summit of Health and Population Scientists in Nepal’ on Tuesday 11th April.  This annual conference in Kathmandu is organised by the NHRC (Nepal Health Research Council).

In the morning Prof. Sujan Marahatta (who is Visiting Professor at Bournemouth University) and Prof. Simon Rushton from the University of Sheffield presented in the plenary session.  They jointly outlined the preliminary study findings.  In the afternoon, our collaborator Dr. Jiban Karki (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) presented more detailed findings on ‘Human resource management at local level in Nepal’s federalised health system’ from the same study.

During the whole day we also had a poster presentation on display under the title ‘COVID-19 as a challenge to Nepal’s newly-federalised health system: Capacities, responsibilities, and mindsets’.

All dissemination was part of the Nepal Federal Health System Project, our major collaborative project examining the consequences for the health system of Nepal’s move to a federal government structure in 2015.  This is a joint project (2020-2024) led by the University of Sheffield and collaborating with Bournemouth University, the University of Huddersfield, Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) and PHASE Nepal.  This longitudinal interdisciplinary study is funded by the UK Health Systems Research Initiative [Grant ref. MR/T023554/1].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

Erasmus+ exchange visit to Nepal by Dr. Rebecca Neal

international

Last weekend Dr. Rebecca Neal, from the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (FHSS) arrived in Kathmandu on her Erasmus+ exchange with Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Nepal.  Rebecca is a Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology in the Department of Rehabilitation & Sport Sciences.  She met with Prof. Sujan Marahatta at MMIHS to discuss her her teaching in Kathmandu (see photo).  Prof. Marahatta is also BU Visiting Faculty in FHSS. Rebecca faciltiated a workshop session with MSc students on their research proposals for their dissertations on her first day in Kathmandu.

BU is currently in the process of renewing its MoA with MMIHS, to continue working together after the completion of the Erasmus+ programme.  We aim to to maintain the partnership, as the BU-MMIHS collaboration includes various funded and unfunded research projects apart from the Erasmus+ programme.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

#StepForward and become an NHS Research Ethics Committee member

NHS, Research Ethics

The Health Research Authority are inviting people to #StepForward and become a Research Ethics Committee (REC) member.

REC members meet virtually to review exciting new research studies for some of the biggest challenges in health and social care, including cancer, dementia and COVID-19.

It’s important that committees have insight from different perspectives so that we can all trust their decisions. The HRA are particularly looking for people with no healthcare or research experience.

You’ll be provided with regular training and support and it’s a great opportunity to work with people from a range of backgrounds and learn new skills.

You can find out more here. Alternatively, if you have any questions about being on a REC, please get in touch with Suzy Wignall, Clinical Governance Advisor, and Alternate Vice Chair of the West Midlands – Black Country Research Ethics Committee.

Future of Complex Innovative Trial Design

international

The latest Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (FHSS) publication on the last day of March is an editorial in the Nepal Journal of  Epidemiology.  This editorial ‘The Promising Future for Complex Innovative Trial Design in Clinical Research’ has as its lead author, FHSS’s Visiting Faculty Dr. Brijesh Sathian.

 

Reference:

  1. Sathian, B., van Teijlingen, E., Banerjee, I., Asim, M., Kabir, R. (2023) The Promising Future for Complex Innovative Trial Design in Clinical Research. Nepal Journal of  Epidemiology, 13(1):1256-1257.

 

Peer review picking up weaknesses in a scientific paper

international, Publishing, writing

Peer review is the the key pillar of academic publishing.  Peer reviewers will read the submitted paper and assess its knowledge contribution, the appropriateness of the research question, the ethical considerations, the quality of the research methods used and the appropriateness of the discussion, conclusion, and recommendations in the manuscript. [1]  It is worth bearing in mind that most peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers, academics like us who review for journals over and above the day job.[2]  For the authors peer reviewers can give excellent feedback.  Harvey and colleagues remind their readers that peer reviewers reading your manuscript with a fresh pair of eyes, can lead to them raising great questions and offering useful comments.  In short, reviewers’ reservations and misunderstandings can help you to rephrase and better focus your paper. [3]

However, what the review process does not do is picking up every possible minor mistake and typo in a paper.  I was reminded of this last week when I read a peer-reviewed paper in which the basic demographics table (the characteristics of the study participants) did not add up to 100%.  Luckily, the same authors (who shall remain nameless) published a different paper from the same study in another quality journal, which allowed me to check the numbers.  Interestingly, the second paper in another peer-reviewed journal had the same mistake.   In the end I ended up writing to two different editors pointing out this anomaly.   The editors contacted the authors who have since promised to rectify the mistake.

Something similar has also happened to us.  Occasionally I reread one of our articles in a good journal and wonder about some of the unclear sentences or poorly expressed grammar or style.  Neither the editor nor the peer-reviewers spotted it nor did my co-authors and I noticed these mistakes in the paper proofs.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  3. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.

 

New sociology paper led by Dr. Orlanda Harvey

PG research, Publishing, student research, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Orlanda Harvey and Dr. Margarete Parrish in the Department of Social Sciences & Social Work on the publication of our article “Using a Range of Communication Tools to Interview a Hard-to-Reach Population” in Sociological Research Online [1].  The paper highlights that online communication tools are increasingly being used by researchers; hence it is timely to reflect on the differences when using a broad range of data collection methods. Using a case study with a potentially hard-to-reach substance-using population who are often distrustful of researchers, this article explores the use of a variety of different platforms for interviews. It highlights both the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Face-to-face interviews and online videos offer more opportunity to build rapport, but lack anonymity. Live Webchat and audio-only interviews offer a high level of anonymity, but both may incur a loss of non-verbal communication, and in the Webchat a potential loss of personal narrative. This article is intended for sociologists who wish to broaden their methods for conducting research interviews.

This methods article was developed based on the recruitment issues faced during Orlanda’s PhD research from which she has published several previous papers [2-6].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E., Parrish, M. (2023)  Using a Range of Communication Tools to Interview a Hard-to-Reach Population. Sociological Research Online [online first]
  2. Harvey, O., Keen, S., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2019) Support for people who use Anabolic Androgenic Steroids: A Systematic Literature Review into what they want and what they access. BMC Public Health 19: 1024
  3. Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E., Trenoweth, S. (2020) Support for non-prescribed Anabolic Androgenic Steroids users: A qualitative exploration of their needs Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 27:5, 377-386. doi 10.1080/09687637.2019.1705763
  4.  Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E, Trenoweth, S. (2022) Libido as a reason to use non-prescribed Anabolic Androgenic Steroids, Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 29(3):276-288.
  5. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E., Parrish, M. (2022) Mixed-methods research on androgen abuse – a review, Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes 29(6):586-593.
  6. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) The case for ‘anabolics’ coaches: selflessness versus self-interest? Performance Enhancement & Health 10(3) August, 100230