JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


February 2016


View:

Show Author | Hide Author

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject

From

Date Sorted by Date, Most Recent First

Size

Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets' / 3800 €

Sandall, Jane

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:33:27 +0000

51904 lines

Letter to new scientist

Sandall, Jane

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:36:46 +0000

199 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

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

Re: MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Digest - 28 Feb 2016 (#2016-51)

Hall, Priscilla Joy

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:58:08 +0000

523 lines

AW: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT

Knape, Nina

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:56:04 +0000

2900 lines

Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT

Diana Paton

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:54:48 +0000

1906 lines

Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT

Suze Jans

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:48:51 +0100

1486 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

Rachel Scanlan

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:31:34 +0000

1246 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

Rachael Spencer

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:57:53 +0000

1071 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

Jay, Annabel

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:54:48 +0000

1979 lines

Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT

Amanda Willetts

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:48:54 +0000

2320 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

Nicky J Clark

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:02 +0000

1778 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

Corine Verhoeven

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:52:03 +0100

1280 lines

Starvation during IOL?

Jane Morley-Smith

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:51:44 +0000

18 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Besseling S (AV-M)

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:43:23 +0000

844 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 REVISED DRAFT

Marshall, Jayne E

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:45:50 +0000

1548 lines

Delete

Modiba, Lebitsi

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:18:17 +0000

514 lines

Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT

Fekadu Mazengia Alemu

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:59:27 +0300

1902 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

Ginny Brunton

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:19:05 +0000

26 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

Nieuwenhuijze M (AV-M)

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:56:12 +0000

1213 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

Offerhaus P (AV-M)

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:28:39 +0000

1483 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

Celia Grigg

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:31:45 +1300

1590 lines

Fwd: [ganm] Summary for 2/28/2016

Sandall, Jane

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:04:39 +0000

475 lines

sign

Aveen Haji Mam

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:12:02 +0000

33 lines

Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT

Jenny Parratt

Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:58:21 +1100

1360 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

Sheila Harvey

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:30:24 -0700

1610 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

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 20:08:35 +0000

494 lines

Re: New scientist - article REVISED DRAFT

Laura Bridle

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:29:49 +0000

1139 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

Wilson Caitlin

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:04:52 +0000

448 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

Jenny Hall

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:47:48 +0000

423 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

SHEENA BYROM

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:12:55 +0000

1418 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

Meghan Jackson

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:48:35 +0000

914 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Wilson Caitlin

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:41:40 +0000

755 lines

Re: Midwifery led units

Walker, Shawn

Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:24:17 +0000

100 lines

Midwifery led units

Franny Meritt

Sat, 27 Feb 2016 19:28:28 -0500

49 lines

Re: New scientist - article

SHEENA BYROM

Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:06:34 +0000

463 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Nicky Grace

Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:23:26 +0300

347 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Annette Briley

Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:15:58 +0000

670 lines

Re: New Scientist - Article

Sandall, Jane

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:42:53 +0000

172 lines

Re: FW: New scientist - article

Yvonne McGrath

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:31:28 +0000

1182 lines

Re: FW: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:29:11 +0000

960 lines

Re: FW: New scientist - article

Besseling S (AV-M)

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:27:53 +0000

928 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 21:24:40 +0000

885 lines

Re: New Scientist - Article

Karin Gottvall

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:23:13 +0000

41 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Lucia Rocca

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:20:43 +0000

960 lines

Re: New scientist - article

SHEENA BYROM

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:13:43 +0100

904 lines

Re: New scientist - article

SHEENA BYROM

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:11:43 +0100

919 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Corine Verhoeven

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:10:04 +0100

823 lines

Re: New Scientist - Article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:09:30 +0000

35 lines

New Scientist - Article

Dodwell, Miranda

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:57:59 +0000

19 lines

Re: FW: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:49:21 +0000

822 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 20:45:20 +0000

755 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:33 +0000

613 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:15 +0000

654 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Sandall, Jane

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:31:25 +0000

605 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Zoo vardavaki

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:28:06 +0000

745 lines

Re: FW: New scientist - article

Ellen Blix

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:24:35 +0000

724 lines

Re: FW: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:16:36 +0000

677 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Jonge, Ank de

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:56:35 +0000

678 lines

Re: FW: New scientist - article

Liz Darling

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:55:24 -0500

528 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:36:26 +0000

405 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Louise Silverton

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:27:22 +0000

780 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Luisa Cescutti-Butler

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:23:31 +0000

407 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Jenny Hall

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:20:59 +0000

694 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Jenny Hall

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:09:27 +0000

624 lines

Unsuscribe

Hildingsson Ingegerd

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:03:34 +0000

15 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Zoo vardavaki

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:02:00 +0000

397 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Macfarlane, Alison

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:59:17 +0000

650 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Cluett E.

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:43:18 +0000

1363 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:40:02 +0000

545 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:33:47 +0000

653 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Mary Ross-Davie

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:33:43 +0000

650 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Macfarlane, Alison

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:30:08 +0000

551 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Billie Hunter

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:11:28 +0000

797 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:56:00 +0000

709 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Mary Renfrew (Staff)

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:41:37 +0000

1393 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Cluett E.

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:30:59 +0000

1267 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:05:44 +0000

411 lines

Re: New scientist - article

McCourt, Christine

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:44:24 +0000

785 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Mary Ross-Davie

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:30:29 +0000

422 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 09:22:17 +0000

325 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Lucia Rocca

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:09:56 +0000

627 lines

Re: New scientist - article

SHEENA BYROM

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:54:22 +0100

676 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:56:15 +0000

288 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Thomas McEwan

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:42:05 +0000

469 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Jenny Hall

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:34:30 +0000

119 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 23:17:40 +0000

77 lines

Re: New scientist - article

Soo Downe

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:08:50 +0000

43 lines

New scientist - article

Jenny Hall

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:03:52 +0000

30 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

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

FW: Publication of Guide For Aspiring Clinical Academics and their Managers - UK

Sandall, Jane

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:16:49 +0000

193 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Soo Downe

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:02:31 +0000

2267 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

Lucia Rocca

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:55:11 +0000

2940 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 13:43:53 +0000

2513 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

Soo Downe

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:29:42 +0000

1599 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

McCourt, Christine

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:19:13 +0000

1450 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 12:22:38 +0000

4215 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Celia Grigg

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:09:56 +1300

830 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: 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 €

Soo Downe

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:57:29 +0000

2315 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 €

Sandall, Jane

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:39:44 +0000

39828 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 €

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 12:57:52 +0000

2215 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 €

Macfarlane, Alison

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:41:45 +0000

1883 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Soo Downe

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:31:35 +0000

1188 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Mary Sidebotham

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:27:49 +1000

1915 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: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'

Soo Downe

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +0000

1737 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Soo Downe

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:03:16 +0000

1219 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

Denis Walsh

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:57:59 +0000

686 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

Wilson Caitlin

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:18:01 +0000

503 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

Lucia Ramirez-Montesinos

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:37:52 +0000

441 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Wilson Caitlin

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:00:16 +0000

370 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: 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'

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 21:59:11 +0000

121938 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'

Mary Sidebotham

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:49:08 +1000

1661 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Lucia Rocca

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:19:11 +0000

421 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Lucia Ramirez-Montesinos

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:47:02 +0000

356 lines

Re: Personal budgets in maternity care

Lisa Common

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:01:15 +0000

425 lines

Re: Personal budgets in maternity care

Gillian Meldrum

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:51:42 +0000

472 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 18:27:38 +0000

469 lines

Re: Personal budgets in maternity care

Soo Downe

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:13:36 +0000

387 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Rachel Scanlan

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:01:30 +0000

320 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

Lucia Rocca

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:00:34 +0000

412 lines

Re: Personal budgets in maternity care

Macfarlane, Alison

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:55:56 +0000

278 lines

Re: Personal budgets in maternity care

Gillian Meldrum

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:50:43 +0000

259 lines

Re: maternity review and midwifery continuity

JERVIS, BEVERLEY KATINA (PG)

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:49:00 +0000

308 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

Claire Feeley

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:42:40 +0000

165 lines

maternity review and midwifery continuity

JERVIS, BEVERLEY KATINA (PG)

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:34:02 +0000

140 lines

Re: Personal budgets in maternity care

Soo Downe

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:00:40 +0000

258 lines

Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'

Macfarlane, Alison

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:00:20 +0000

1508 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'

Soo Downe

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:46:53 +0000

1429 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'

Mary Edmondson

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:26:46 +0000

1134 lines

Re: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'

Jenny Hall

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:26:11 +0000

1155 lines

FW: Women to be offered their own £3,000 'birth budgets'

Macfarlane, Alison

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:11:45 +0000

1077 lines

Fwd: Call for abstracts - RCM Annual Conference 2016

Sandall, Jane

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:28:39 +0000

703 lines

Weight Stigma Conference: abstract deadline extended

Angela Meadows

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:21:20 +0000

41 lines

FW: ** Job Opportunity ** SISCC Associate Director (Partnerships) and Workstream Lead

Heather Whitford (Staff)

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:15:53 +0000

6598 lines

Re: link to JAMA on CS

Jane Henderson

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:11:22 +0000

17004 lines

link to JAMA on CS

Sophie Alexander

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:18:25 +0100

483 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

The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit - recruitment

Jane Munro

Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:10:33 +0000

9145 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

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

AW: questionnaire license fee

Nina Knape

Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:42:51 +0100

60 lines

Re: questionnaire license fee

Katja Stahl

Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:49:00 +0100

43 lines

Re: questionnaire license fee

Annette Briley

Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:45:17 +0000

41 lines

questionnaire license fee

Katja Stahl

Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:16:24 +0100

23 lines

FW: @SallyPezaro retweeted one of your Retweets!

Sandall, Jane

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:55:45 +0000

606 lines

FW: [The Cochrane Collaboration] Interested in info about Cochrane Training? Find...

Sandall, Jane

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:54:41 +0000

543 lines

Fwd: Post-Doctoral Research Associate in pregnancy/perinatal epidemiology

Sandall, Jane

Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:33:59 +0000

7244 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

Fw: [MEDSOCNEWS] Call for Abstracts BSA Human Reproduction Study Group Annual Conference

Sandall, Jane

Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:27:35 +0000

111 lines

Fw: [REPRONETWORK] Take Root Reproductive Justice Conference Feb 26-27 USA

Sandall, Jane

Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:24:32 +0000

8726 lines

King’s College London Midwifery Lecture Series 2016

Sandall, Jane

Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:54:22 +0000

358 lines

Fwd: [The Cochrane Collaboration] "What are systematic reviews?" New video resource...

Sandall, Jane

Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:46:58 +0000

682 lines

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager