I agree with previous people posting - I think the difference is in ways of seeing rather than methods used. Midwifery research tends to ask different kinds of questions - not only does this work, but how does it work, who for, and how do they feel about it? This means that mixed methods are more often the approach of choice, which brings complex ethics and governance questions. Midwifery reserach also addresses issues that may be seen by others to be unproblematic, but which midwives know are of concern to women (such as enemas and episiotomies, as in the studies Chris mentions below). So the driver is less curiosity about basic science, or population level evidence (though midwives do do this, of course), and more curiosity about what happens in practice to real people, and why it happens. This leads to solutions to real world problems that matter to service users - which should be of interest to funders, presumably? However, it also tends to entail more complex ethical questions than in standard research, such as pharma RCTs - such as, is consent needed from all those who might come into view during an observational study, for example.
All the best
Soo
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McCourt, Christine
Sent: 17 February 2013 08:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Midiwfery reserach compared to Medical research
Examples of that would include trials of midwifery interventions. Examples would include the HOOP trial, Jenny Sleep's episiotomy trial, the ElSA trial. We used a complex interventions approach to testing effects of massage on labour, starting with qualitative observational and then developing a trial based on this work.
Dr. Christine McCourt
Professor of Maternal and Child Health,
School of Health Sciences
The City University London
Bartholomew Close
London, EC1 7PN
Mobile: 0791 235 1476
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 0207 040 5863
Skype: chrismccourt
________________________________________
From: Pauline Dawson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 17 February 2013 04:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Midiwfery reserach compared to Medical research
Thanks Ann,
Although not all midwifery research is qualitative even though it leans that way...
Kind regards
Pauline Dawson
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ann Thomson
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013 3:32 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Midiwfery reserach compared to Medical research
Suggest you might like to raise the issue of different research approaches - Quantitative/qualitative.
Ann
Ann M Thomson
Professor (Emerita) of Midiwfery
University of Manchester
(currently away in Australia)
________________________________
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Pauline Dawson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 February 2013 05:47
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Midiwfery reserach compared to Medical research Dear colleagues
I am anticipating a discussion this coming week about supervision of midwifery research in my workplace. Until recently very little midwifery research has been carried out within the hospital/district health board, so the research office are exploring a robust process for dealing with it. Luckily they already realise that peer review by obstetricians is not optimal and are looking at others options.
However I know I will be asked "What's the difference?" I wondered if you could supply some little gems to assist with my reply.
I plan to talk about focus (normal vs pathology) and the work being women centred. As I work in a tertiary unit I am often dealing with pathology (sometimes a result of intervention, sometimes not) but I tend to take a 'women's experience of this' angle, not just outcomes.
Any comments appreciated
Kind regards
Pauline Dawson
Midwife/Researcher
Dunedin, New Zealand
|
