JISCMail - MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives

Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Subscriber's Corner

Email Lists

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives

February 2016

View:

Show Author | Hide Author

		LISTSERV Archives
		MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Get Password

Subject	From	Date	Size
Fwd: [The Cochrane Collaboration] "What are systematic reviews?" New video resource...	Sandall, Jane	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:46:58 +0000	682 lines
King’s College London Midwifery Lecture Series 2016	Sandall, Jane	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:54:22 +0000	358 lines
Fw: [REPRONETWORK] Take Root Reproductive Justice Conference Feb 26-27 USA	Sandall, Jane	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:24:32 +0000	8726 lines
Fw: [MEDSOCNEWS] Call for Abstracts BSA Human Reproduction Study Group Annual Conference	Sandall, Jane	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:27:35 +0000	111 lines
ONLINE Course Introduction to Statistics for Health Care Research 16 May – 22 June 2016	University of Oxford CPD Centre	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:44:00 +0000	90 lines
Fwd: Post-Doctoral Research Associate in pregnancy/perinatal epidemiology	Sandall, Jane	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:33:59 +0000	7244 lines
FW: [The Cochrane Collaboration] Interested in info about Cochrane Training? Find...	Sandall, Jane	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:54:41 +0000	543 lines
FW: @SallyPezaro retweeted one of your Retweets!	Sandall, Jane	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:55:45 +0000	606 lines
questionnaire license fee	Katja Stahl	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:16:24 +0100	23 lines
Re: questionnaire license fee	Annette Briley	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:45:17 +0000	41 lines
Re: questionnaire license fee	Katja Stahl	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:49:00 +0100	43 lines
AW: questionnaire license fee	Nina Knape	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:42:51 +0100	60 lines
METHODS FOR EVALUATING MEDICAL TESTS AND BIOMARKERS: 4TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM. 19th-20th July 2016, University of Birmingham, UK	Yemisi Takwoingi (School of Health and Population Sciences)	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 18:47:50 +0000	550 lines
Fwd: Involving patients and the public in your research - NIHR webinar 23.02.2016	Sandall, Jane	Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:46:55 +0000	409 lines
The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit - recruitment	Jane Munro	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:10:33 +0000	9145 lines
Online Course - Introduction to Statistics for Health Care Research 16 May - 22 June 2016	University of Oxford CPD Centre	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:15:47 +0000	90 lines
link to JAMA on CS	Sophie Alexander	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:18:25 +0100	483 lines
Re: link to JAMA on CS	Jane Henderson	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:11:22 +0000	17004 lines
FW: Job Opportunity SISCC Associate Director (Partnerships) and Workstream Lead	Heather Whitford (Staff)	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:15:53 +0000	6598 lines
Weight Stigma Conference: abstract deadline extended	Angela Meadows	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:21:20 +0000	41 lines
Fwd: Call for abstracts - RCM Annual Conference 2016	Sandall, Jane	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:28:39 +0000	703 lines
FW: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Macfarlane, Alison	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:11:45 +0000	1077 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Jenny Hall	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:26:11 +0000	1155 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Mary Edmondson	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:26:46 +0000	1134 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Macfarlane, Alison	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:35:03 +0000	1107 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Soo Downe	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:46:53 +0000	1429 lines
Personal budgets in maternity care	Macfarlane, Alison	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:49:45 +0000	149 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Macfarlane, Alison	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:00:20 +0000	1508 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Soo Downe	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:00:40 +0000	258 lines
maternity review and midwifery continuity	JERVIS, BEVERLEY KATINA (PG)	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:34:02 +0000	140 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Claire Feeley	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:42:40 +0000	165 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Soo Downe	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:47:42 +0000	274 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	JERVIS, BEVERLEY KATINA (PG)	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:49:00 +0000	308 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Gillian Meldrum	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:50:43 +0000	259 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Macfarlane, Alison	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:55:56 +0000	278 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Lucia Rocca	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:00:34 +0000	412 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Rachel Scanlan	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:01:30 +0000	320 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Soo Downe	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:13:36 +0000	387 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Gillian Meldrum	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:27:38 +0000	469 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Gillian Meldrum	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:41:12 +0000	1503 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Gillian Meldrum	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:51:42 +0000	472 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Lisa Common	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:01:15 +0000	425 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Lucia Ramirez-Montesinos	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:47:02 +0000	356 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Lucia Rocca	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:19:11 +0000	421 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Mary Sidebotham	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:49:08 +1000	1661 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	SHEENA BYROM	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:58:18 +0100	468 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Soo Downe	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:59:11 +0000	121938 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Mary Sidebotham	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:08:10 +1000	2032 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Soo Downe	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:09:29 +0000	1639 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Jennifer Gamble	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:29 +1000	2101 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Wilson Caitlin	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:00:16 +0000	370 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Lucia Ramirez-Montesinos	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:37:52 +0000	441 lines
Re: Personal budgets in maternity care	Alison McFadden (Staff)	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:00:31 +0000	518 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Wilson Caitlin	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:18:01 +0000	503 lines
FW: NHS offer mums £3k to spend on maternity care	Macfarlane, Alison	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:55:37 +0000	109 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Denis Walsh	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:57:59 +0000	686 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Mary Ross-Davie	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:07 +0000	757 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:03:16 +0000	1219 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +0000	1737 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:17:50 +0000	1767 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Mary Sidebotham	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:27:49 +1000	1915 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:31:35 +0000	1188 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Macfarlane, Alison	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:41:45 +0000	1883 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:48:53 +0000	1933 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Rena Papadopoulos	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:57:52 +0000	2215 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:07:38 +0000	2111 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Rena Papadopoulos	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:13:17 +0000	2500 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Sandall, Jane	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:39:44 +0000	39828 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:53:26 +0000	2594 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Soo Downe	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:57:29 +0000	2315 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Claire Feeley	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:55:07 +0000	2522 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Susan Crabtree	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:09:37 +0000	2585 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Celia Grigg	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:09:56 +1300	830 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	McCourt, Christine	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:22:38 +0000	4215 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Macfarlane, Alison	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:56:52 +0000	1334 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	McCourt, Christine	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:19:13 +0000	1450 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Soo Downe	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:29:42 +0000	1599 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	McCourt, Christine	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:31:49 +0000	1616 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Lucia Rocca	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:43:53 +0000	2513 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Soo Downe	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:53:38 +0000	2093 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Lucia Rocca	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:55:11 +0000	2940 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	McCourt, Christine	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:01:02 +0000	3460 lines
Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity	Soo Downe	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:02:31 +0000	2267 lines
FW: Publication of Guide For Aspiring Clinical Academics and their Managers - UK	Sandall, Jane	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:16:49 +0000	193 lines
Fwd: CALL FOR ABSTRACTS - Midwifery Congress in Tarragona- Spain- 26-27-28 May 2016	Sandall, Jane	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:47:26 +0000	486 lines
Re: CALL FOR ABSTRACTS - Midwifery Congress in Tarragona- Spain- 26-27-28 May 2016	Ann Robinson	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:36:33 +0000	503 lines
New scientist - article	Jenny Hall	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:03:52 +0000	30 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:08:50 +0000	43 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Jenny Hall	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:17:40 +0000	77 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:23:16 +0000	84 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Jenny Hall	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:34:30 +0000	119 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Thomas McEwan	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:42:05 +0000	469 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:56:15 +0000	288 lines
Re: New scientist - article	SHEENA BYROM	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:54:22 +0100	676 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Lucia Rocca	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:09:56 +0000	627 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Mary Ross-Davie	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:22:17 +0000	325 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:25:56 +0000	408 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Mary Ross-Davie	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:30:29 +0000	422 lines
Re: New scientist - article	McCourt, Christine	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:44:24 +0000	785 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:05:44 +0000	411 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Cluett E.	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:30:59 +0000	1267 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Mary Renfrew (Staff)	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:41:37 +0000	1393 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:56:00 +0000	709 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Billie Hunter	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:11:28 +0000	797 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Macfarlane, Alison	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:30:08 +0000	551 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Mary Ross-Davie	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:33:43 +0000	650 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:33:47 +0000	653 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:40:02 +0000	545 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Cluett E.	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:43:18 +0000	1363 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Macfarlane, Alison	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:59:17 +0000	650 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Zoo vardavaki	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:02:00 +0000	397 lines
Unsuscribe	Hildingsson Ingegerd	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:03:34 +0000	15 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Jenny Hall	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:09:27 +0000	624 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Jenny Hall	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:20:59 +0000	694 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Luisa Cescutti-Butler	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:23:31 +0000	407 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Louise Silverton	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:27:22 +0000	780 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:36:26 +0000	405 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Liz Darling	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:55:24 -0500	528 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Jonge, Ank de	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:56:35 +0000	678 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:16:36 +0000	677 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Ellen Blix	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:24:35 +0000	724 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Zoo vardavaki	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:28:06 +0000	745 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Sandall, Jane	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:31:25 +0000	605 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:15 +0000	654 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:33 +0000	613 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:45:20 +0000	755 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Sally Tracy	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:46:53 +1100	897 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:49:21 +0000	822 lines
New Scientist - Article	Dodwell, Miranda	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:57:59 +0000	19 lines
Re: New Scientist - Article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:09:30 +0000	35 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Corine Verhoeven	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:10:04 +0100	823 lines
Re: New scientist - article	SHEENA BYROM	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:11:43 +0100	919 lines
Re: New scientist - article	SHEENA BYROM	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:13:43 +0100	904 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Lucia Rocca	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:20:43 +0000	960 lines
Re: New Scientist - Article	Karin Gottvall	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:23:13 +0000	41 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Besseling S (AV-M)	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:24:40 +0000	885 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:25:08 +0000	750 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Besseling S (AV-M)	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:27:53 +0000	928 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Soo Downe	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:29:11 +0000	960 lines
Re: FW: New scientist - article	Yvonne McGrath	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:31:28 +0000	1182 lines
Re: New Scientist - Article	Sandall, Jane	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:42:53 +0000	172 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Annette Briley	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:15:58 +0000	670 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Nicky Grace	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:23:26 +0300	347 lines
Re: New scientist - article	SHEENA BYROM	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:06:34 +0000	463 lines
Midwifery led units	Franny Meritt	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 19:28:28 -0500	49 lines
Re: Midwifery led units	Walker, Shawn	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:24:17 +0000	100 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Wilson Caitlin	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:41:40 +0000	755 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Meghan Jackson	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:48:35 +0000	914 lines
1698 Associate Professor in Midwifery (Research focus)	Marshall, Jayne E	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:51:28 +0000	2763 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	SHEENA BYROM	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:12:55 +0000	1418 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Church, Sarah	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:49:56 +0000	449 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Jenny Hall	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:47:48 +0000	423 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Zoo vardavaki	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:37 +0000	1268 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Wilson Caitlin	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:04:52 +0000	448 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Josephine Green	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:21:04 +0000	1973 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Laura Bridle	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:29:49 +0000	1139 lines
Fwd: Response to biased article in the New Scientist	Lucia Rocca	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 20:08:35 +0000	494 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Breyette Lorntz	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:18:22 -0500	1266 lines
Fwd: Response to biased article in the New Scientist	Lucia Rocca	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 22:09:36 +0000	505 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Sheila Harvey	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:30:24 -0700	1610 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Martha Livingston	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:34:31 -0500	1367 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Jenny Parratt	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:58:21 +1100	1360 lines
sign	Aveen Haji Mam	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:12:02 +0000	33 lines
Fwd: [ganm] Summary for 2/28/2016	Sandall, Jane	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:04:39 +0000	475 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Celia Grigg	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:31:45 +1300	1590 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Trees Wiegers	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:22:59 +0000	1180 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Offerhaus P (AV-M)	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:28:39 +0000	1483 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Ann Thomson	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:52:11 +0000	1407 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Nieuwenhuijze M (AV-M)	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:56:12 +0000	1213 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Bernadette Divall	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:07:36 +0000	1162 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Ginny Brunton	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:19:05 +0000	26 lines
Re: MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Digest - 28 Feb 2016 (#2016-51)	Michelle Beacock	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:50:58 +0000	2048 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Fekadu Mazengia Alemu	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:59:27 +0300	1902 lines
Delete	Modiba, Lebitsi	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:18:17 +0000	514 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Marshall, Jayne E	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:45:50 +0000	1548 lines
Introduction to Study Design & Research Methods 23rd – 27th May 2016	University of Oxford CPD Centre	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:03:43 +0000	103 lines
Re: New scientist - article	Besseling S (AV-M)	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:43:23 +0000	844 lines
Starvation during IOL?	Jane Morley-Smith	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:51:44 +0000	18 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Corine Verhoeven	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:52:03 +0100	1280 lines
CARE4 International Scientific Nursing and MIDWIFERY congres 2nd edition 2017: registration is open now!	Mestdagh Eveline	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:08:05 +0000	19519 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Nicky J Clark	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:02 +0000	1778 lines
Fwd: Response to biased article in the New Scientist	Lucia Rocca	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:45:35 +0000	545 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Amanda Willetts	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:48:54 +0000	2320 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Jay, Annabel	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:54:48 +0000	1979 lines
FW: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Darra S.	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:57:06 +0000	2345 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Rachael Spencer	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:57:53 +0000	1071 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Zoi Vardavaki	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:37:02 +0000	1284 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Rachel Scanlan	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:31:34 +0000	1246 lines
Re: Response to biased article in the New Scientist	Anna Maria Speciale	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:41:58 +0100	595 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Suze Jans	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:48:51 +0100	1486 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Diana Paton	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:54:48 +0000	1906 lines
AW: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT	Knape, Nina	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:56:04 +0000	2900 lines
Re: MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Digest - 28 Feb 2016 (#2016-51)	Hall, Priscilla Joy	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:08 +0000	523 lines
Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT: final email to the list on this topic	Soo Downe	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:11:38 +0000	1988 lines
SV: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT: final email to the list on this topic	Sigfríður Inga Karlsdóttir	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:28:21 +0000	2626 lines
Letter to new scientist	Sandall, Jane	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:36:46 +0000	199 lines
Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €	Sandall, Jane	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:33:27 +0000	51904 lines

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives

February 2016

Options

Subject

From

Date

Size

JiscMail Tools

RSS Feeds and Sharing

Search Archives

Archives