 |
 |
How wonderful to read your comments Denis. It is the informal 'focus group' that I am involved with in our Collective which provides so much 'evidence' - always called anecdote in other forums. We need to reclaim it - perhaps ANECDOTE could stand for And Now Every-woman Can Decide Her Own Trustworthy Evidence. Evidential heresy? or midwifery claiming Her own! regards Maggie Banks 15 Te Awa Road, RD 3, Hamilton, New Zealand Ph: 64 7 856 4612 Fax: 64 7 856 3070 Website at www.birthspirit.co.nz ----- Original Message ----- From: denis.walsh <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Grading of midwifery evidence > To my knowledge, this has not been sorted by official body's yet. There are > criteria around to address the robustness of qualitative research but these > do not then transfer into a hierarchy table which quantitative research has > to judge its generalisability. Qualitative research's applicability works > more intuitively - when you read it, it 'rings bells' for your practice > environment, gives you insights, challenges taken-for-granted assumptions > etc. In this way, it can be very relevant to your situation. I've seen its > relevance explored locally through a 'focus group' reflective activity where > group members read it in advance and then discuss its implications for their > practice situation. Hierarchy of evidence tables of quantitative research > can work very positively for midwifery practice - most notably with the EFM > NICE Guideline which recommended abandoning the admission trace because the > research design used in the original research came midway down the hierarchy > table ( a non-randomised cohort study I think). One problem with the > hierarchy table is that at the bottom comes professional expertise/opinion > when there are no studies, and this begs the question - which professional > group and who decides on expertise. The other is that a table suggests a > kind of objectivity and an apolitical process - not so as both the stages of > quantitative research and its application to practice are intensely > political processes. > Denis Walsh > Midwife, > Leicester > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sue Dennett" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:46 PM > Subject: Grading of midwifery evidence > > > > Hello all, > > > > A demoralised breast feeding co-ordinator came to me for advice today. > She > > has been asked to grade the level of evidence which support her latest 3 > > policies -skin to skin, hypoglycaemia and bottle feeding. > > > > This brought an issue to a head for me - especially as we are also all > busily > > developing midwifery guidelines for antenatal and intrapartum care. > > > > I would be grateful to hear your opinions on grading midwifery research, > > especially when much of it is qualitative and, in most situations, not > > appropriate for RCTs. I do feel that many of us working within large NHS > > trusts will be increasingly faced with this issue especially when dealing > > with such bodies as CNST (clinical negligence scheme for trusts) and > others. > > > > I would be grateful for some advice or directions to useful literature. > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > Sue Dennett > >