Hi all
Reporters and their often knee jerk sensational responses to childbirth and midwifery have been a struggle for years. This is not just the UK. I, like others, have come under the scrutiny of the press when supporting women in their choices on a few occasions. It is so disempowering and does not serve the public well who remain in the dark to the excellent evidence that supports and refutes practices in maternity.
Should we endeavour to harness a collective approach to journalism for the sake of good information sharing? Do journalists realise that they are creating and strengthening a mood of fear that already permeates a lot of maternity and childbirth?
Go well
Susan
Dr Susan Crowther
Professor of Midwifery
Faculty of Health and Social Care | Robert Gordon University | Garthdee Road|Aberdeen | AB10 7AQ
T: +44 (0) 1224 263291
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4133-2189
Twitter: @SusanCrowtherMW
Blog: http://drsusancrowther.wordpress.com
Those finding themselves at birth need to pause .. allow the profundity of its meaning to surface and inspire their actions
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH automatic digest system
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 12:02 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Digest - 27 May 2016 to 30 May 2016 (#2016-120)
There are 4 messages totaling 1339 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
2. FW: NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE Clinical
Guidelines Updates - Standing Committee A Monday 27 June 2016. 10:00 –
16:30
3. FW: New guide on evaluating healthcare system innovations (target group:
researcher, evaluat; health services research; N=692)
4. FW: Survey on Rapid Reviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:03:46 +0200
From: Alexander Sophie <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
Thank-you.
I think I should write a letter to Archives? Do you?
>
I agree with you, but journalists who are not experts in a particular field and therefore may be unaware of the evidence and may be swayed by the people who are still resisting the fact that research didn't prove what they wanted it to.
>
>It's difficult to know what can be done. I am copying in Connie St Louis, our Senior Lecturer in Science Journalism. She runs City's Science Journalism programme, which aims to train journalists to assess the validity of claims being made.
>
>Alison
>
>From: Soo Downe [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 27 May 2016 11:26
>To: Macfarlane, Alison; A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research.
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>I agree Alison, but I think this is the crucial difference. It is not the same to express an opinion in the absence of evidence as it is to refuse to take into account evidence when it does actually exist.. journalism (at least at the high quality end) is not supposed to be about deliberate misinformation, but about disseminating facts and information (along with opinion, but as commentary on the facts) in the public interest. The phrase in bold is the mantra of the press. It is not in the public interest to tell women that they should be using techniques and approaches that are more likely to damage their health and that of their babies (and to cause high levels of resource use that cannot then be used for effective health care in maternity or other fields) than an alternative approach, based on good quality evidence. They are more than keen to get the NHS to ban complementary therapies despite the huge numbers of people who choose to use them, on the grounds of a lack of evidence of effect and waste of resources; why don't they call for the same in terms of, for example, hospital birth for healthy women and babies, or routine elective CS with no medical, psychological or social reasons, especially as the evidence here is not just lack of effect, but actual harm ?.
>
>I think we have to call them out on this.
>
>all the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: Macfarlane, Alison [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 27 May 2016 11:04
>To: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research.; Soo Downe
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Highly regrettable but hardly new! In the past they could claim that there was no evidence. Now there is evidence which doesn't support their position they are carrying on.
>
>Alison
>
>From: Soo Downe [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 26 May 2016 10:52
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Yes we are having the same issues - usually credible/ sympathetic sources such as the guardian newspaper and the new scientist journal are writing anecdotal non- evidence based pieces based on blogs and personal views or non- published data that are pro caesarean, doctors and hospitals and anti normal birth and midwives....
>
>From: Sophie ULB [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 26 May 2016 05:43
>To: 'A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research.'
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>C.UK>>; Soo Downe <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>I have tried to answer individually to avoid "polluting" the list, but this is more general so back to the list.
>
>One of the things which is remarkable to me, is that as a rule, "Le Soir" tends to err in the other direction. They listen very attentively to the anti-vaccination lobby for instance.
>It is probably a mixture of "selling the paper" and not understanding English well.
>Will get a pdf of the full one (large) page article and send it to the list.
>
>I think setting up an event would be thought provocative for both sides. I remember one such event at a Cochrane Colloquium where they invited people working in government. And the substance was that they wanted a yes / no statement, with arguments that held in one page, and could be read in the lift going up to the meeting. So of course somebody in the audience said "better for science when your meetings are on the 15th floor than the 1st " and everyone laughed...
>
>De : A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Soo
>Downe Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 20:54 À :
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>UK> Objet : Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>yes, we are also getting an increasing number of (usually female) journalists writing articles like this about home birth, or midwife care, or normal birth, on the basis of one badly done study, or what someone wrote on a blog. Im getting very concerned about this remarkably sloppy and damaging approach to reporting, even in good quality papers - I think it is social media norms that super-value charismatic individuals views over carefully done studies and good quality evidence. Im wondering about setting up an event and inviting all these journalists to it, and just talking to them about what they think their duty of care is, and about how they understand journalistic integrity. I honestly think they think they are reporting unbiased facts and representing the whole picture (based on an email exchange I have had with one of these journalists). Given the impact they have on womens views and beliefs, I seriously think there is an urgent need to get into dialogue with them...
>
>All the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: Sophie Alexander [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 25 May 2016 17:38
>To: 'A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research.'; Soo Downe
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>From one of our two main newspapers...
>
>http://www.lesoir.be/1218104/article/selection-abonnes/2016-05-23/l-acc
>ouchement-sous-l-eau-une-mode-dangereuse
>
>Even for those who can't read much French well worth looking at.
>After that I am afraid I will have to draft a "droit de réponse"...
>
>Sophie Alexander MD, PhD
>PERU (Perinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive health Unit) Ecole de
>Santé Publique Universite Libre de Bruxelles
>808 route de Lennik
>1070 Brussels
>Belgium
>Tel +32 2555 4063
>
>De : A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Soo
>Downe Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 17:30 À :
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>UK> Objet : Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Nothing wrong with paranoia!
>
>All the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sophie
>Alexander
>Sent: 25 May 2016 16:29
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>
>1. Source of excitement
>Got it I think : 1 fatal legionellosis (attach)
>
>2. Thanks and possibly one more request (?)
>Thanks to all who are being really helpful.
>There is one more thing I would love to have, there is an EPUB ahead of print paper coming out in Archives:
>
>Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and
>meta-analysis.<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27127204>
>
>Taylor H, Kleine I, Bewley S, Loucaides E, Sutcliffe A.
>
>Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016 Apr 28. pii:
>fetalneonatal-2015-309600. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309600. [Epub ahead of print] Can't access it, so if someone has it that would be great.
>
>3. Possible cause for such a strong parliamentary position
>Also, mild paranoia maybe, but there is a hospital in Ostend who does a lot, and I was wondering whether they was not something fishy about this sudden excitement ?
>
>Sophie Alexander MD, PhD
>PERU (Perinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive health Unit) Ecole de
>Santé Publique Universite Libre de Bruxelles
>808 route de Lennik
>1070 Brussels
>Belgium
>Tel +32 2555 4063
>
>De : A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de
>Sandall, Jane Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 16:52 À :
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>UK> Objet : Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Dear Sophie
>You are correct and evidence summarized in NICE intrapartum guidelines. But there may be new publications since then as you say.
>Regards
>Jane
>
>From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Soo
>Downe
>Sent: 25 May 2016 15:49
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Sophie, your understanding is correct - in general the evidence from a range of settings is that waterbirth is beneficial. Indeed, there is much better evidence for the benefits of waterbirth than there is for hospitalisation for all healthy women and babies, or for obstetric led care for such women and babies (both of which are NOT recommended based on good quality evidence) so it would be better for ONE to investigate the benefits of birth centre/home birth or the lower rates of prematurity with continuity of midwife led care than to react to one study from the US on waterbirth!
>
> Ethel, can you send your latest data on waterbirth to Sophie?
>
>All the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
>research [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sophie
>Alexander
>Sent: 25 May 2016 15:54
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: TR: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Dear list colleagues,
>One of the things I do, is serve as "counselor" for ONE our Belgian French speaking agency for maternal and child welfare.
>This entails, among other things answering parliamentary questions (that is questions that any citizen may ask the parliament).
>
>Maybe you can help me for a new one on water births, as I have a vague feeling that this topic has been discussed recently on the list (?). The document says that there has been a new American publication highlighting the risks of waterbirths. And in addition a demand that ONE should, elaborate to inform women about the risks.
>
>I will be looking at PUBmed, and looking for said US paper, but my globalopinion was that there is good evidence that laboring in water is helpful, and not much evidence - in one direction or the other - about under water second stage.
>
>So if you have got a ready made review to send on, I would be truly grateful.
>
>Sophie Alexander MD, PhD
>PERU (Perinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive health Unit) Ecole de
>Santé Publique Universite Libre de Bruxelles
>808 route de Lennik
>1070 Brussels
>Belgium
>Tel +32 2555 4063
>
>De : DE JONGHE Cédric [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Envoyé : mercredi
>25 mai 2016 14:16 À : Alexander; CEYSENS; Chaumont; DENOO; Fivet;
>Hernandez; Masson; MAUROY Marie-Christine; MORALES Ingrid; RIBESSE
>Nathalie Cc : ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
>Objet : QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Madame, Monsieur,
>
>Avez-vous des éléments de réponse qui nous aideraient à répondre à cette question parlementaire ?
>Nous devons y répondre pour ce vendredi .
>Bien cordialement à vous.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 13:56:40 +0000
From: "Sandall, Jane" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE Clinical Guidelines Updates - Standing Committee A Monday 27 June 2016. 10:00 – 16:30
From: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 May 2016 13:44
To: Sandall, Jane <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE Clinical Guidelines Updates - Standing Committee A Monday 27 June 2016. 10:00 – 16:30
26/05/2016
[NICE - National Institute for Health and Care Excellence]
Level 1A, City Tower
Piccadilly Plaza
Manchester
M1 4BT
Tel: 0845 003 7780
Fax: 0845 003 7784
www.nice.org.uk<http://www.nice.org.uk>
Dear stakeholder representative,
I am writing to inform you that the public registration facility to observe the committee meeting for Intrapartum Care (standing committee update) is open on the NICE website.
If you would like to register to observe this committee meeting, please do so via the following web page:
https://www.nice.org.uk/event/cgua-june-2016.
Registration for this meeting will close on14 June 2016. Please note we are not able to accept late requests to observe this meeting.
As a public observer, you will be able to listen to the business of the meeting, except where confidential information is being discussed, however, you will not be able to:
· participate in committee discussions
· ask questions, take part in voting or put your views to members of the committee
For further information about meetings in public please refer to the following document: Common questions and answers about standing advisory committee meetings in public. <http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/Get-involved/Meetings-In-Public/Meetings-in-Public-common-FAQs.pdf>
Should you have any queries regarding observing this meeting, please contact the Meetings in Public Coordinator, Sandra Robinson ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
Kind regards,
Trudie Willingham
Guidelines Co-ordinator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 13:56:41 +0000
From: "Sandall, Jane" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: New guide on evaluating healthcare system innovations (target group: researcher, evaluat; health services research; N=692)
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) New guide on evaluating healthcare system innovations
A new e-book<http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/volume-4/issue-16#abstract> published is the first to comprehensively address the challenges faced by healthcare providers in evaluating system-level innovations in healthcare services in an evolving landscape.
If innovations can be better evaluated, then better, evidence-based decisions can be made by healthcare providers to improve the quality of health services in the UK.
Entitled 'Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health', the book is the result of a partnership between the NIHR, Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Foundation, together with Universities UK and Academy Health.
The e-book, edited by Professor Rosalind Raine at UCL and Professor Ray Fitzpatrick at the University of Oxford, brings together opinions from experts around the world following a two-day symposium in London last year. The event saw over 90 world-leading applied health researchers and methodologists debate how to address increasing complexity, diversity and pace of change within health systems. The e-book captures and advances those discussions in a series of essays which set out a repertoire of methodologies for evaluation.
Until now, there has been no clear consensus of how to evaluate innovation in this complex and continually changing landscape. This new e-book will act as a living document offering 'state of the science' methodologies for such evaluation.
Read more at: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/newsroom/research-news/new-guide-on-evaluating-healthcare-system-innovations/3495
----------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Irina Johnston
CHAIN Administrative Assistant
If you wish to publicise information on the CHAIN Network please email your request to: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
CHAIN - Contact, Help, Advice and Information Network - is an online international network for people working in health and social care. For more information on CHAIN and joining the network please visit website: www.chain-network.org.uk<http://www.chain-network.org.uk>
Follow CHAIN on Twitter<https://twitter.com/#!/CHAIN_Network>: @CHAIN_Network ; Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chain-Network/331919156845737>; Connect with CHAIN on LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chain-network/4a/82a/a45>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice to CHAIN members: To help us keep your record up-to-date please let us know when your details change - for examples when you move to a new job or change address. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 18:07:21 +0000
From: "Sandall, Jane" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: Survey on Rapid Reviews
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Valerie King
Sent: 30 May 2016 18:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Survey on Rapid Reviews
***Apologies for any Cross-Posting**
Cochrane Austria (Co-convenor of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group) are currently conducting a survey among decisionmakers about rapid reviews. The specific question that we are trying to address is, how much risk of getting a wrong answer are decisionmakers willing to accept in exchange for a rapid synthesis of the evidence (i.e. more rapid than a systematic review). The survey takes about 10 minutes and addresses 3 different scenarios.
It would be great if you could complete the survey and/or forward the link to decisionmakers and guideline developers in your country, who use evidence synthesis for decisionmaking.
Here are the links to the English, Spanish and German versions of the survey:
English:
http://survey.cochrane.at/index.php/267551/lang-en
Spanish:
http://survey.cochrane.at/index.php/481178/lang-es
German:
http://survey.cochrane.at/index.php/481178/lang-de
If you have any questions or feedback regarding this survey, please contact [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
Thank you for your help,
Valerie
Valerie J. King, MD, MPH
Director of Research
Center for Evidence-based Policy
Oregon Health & Science University
Mailstop MDYCEBP
Suite 250
3030 SW Moody Ave.
Portland, OR 97201
Voice: 503-494-8694
Fax: 503-494-3807
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.ohsu.edu/policycenter/<http://www.ohsu.edu/policycenter/>
------------------------------
End of MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Digest - 27 May 2016 to 30 May 2016 (#2016-120)
*************************************************************************
________________________________
Robert Gordon University is the top university for graduate jobs in the UK HESA July 2015
Robert Gordon University, a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC 013781.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Robert Gordon University. Thank you.
|
