Dear Mary
Thanks very much for your clarification.
The link that I was referring to, and which I copied directly in to the message was the link provided by ChiMat, which is the public health England policy and research digest on maternal and child health and titled 'Royal College of Midwives press release'.
The piece that you have written - i.e. the official statement in response to the trial- does not have the problems that I had observed of giving a somewhat confusing and potentially misleading take on the findings and I'm very pleased to read it.
I wonder what the solution is here then? It wasn't clear to me that this was a journalist's take and not the RCM's take on the trial given that it was a press release from the RCM, was on the RCM website and was the link provided by ChiMat.
Is there a way that such issues can be clarified on the website to ensure that readers are not confused by differing messages from RCM statements and press releases?
On 12/10/2018, 11:56, "A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. on behalf of Mary Ross-Davie" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Christine and other Jiscmail members
I just wanted to write in response to comments about the RCM response to the AFFIRM trial.
I was the lead author for the RCM for our response, with support from the wider RCM professional team. I was concerned to read that you felt that our response was unclear.
We were keen to ensure that we responded quickly to the publication of the study in the Lancet and produced this statement within 24 hours of its publication as we know this is a very important topic for many of our members and for the maternity community.
I think it is natural that the level of detail that we include in an immediate response statement for the media and our members is less than the publishing academic journal.
The first line in the statement where we describe the results is this:
‘ The results of the study are clear: the package of care did not lead to a statistically significant reduction in the number of stillbirths and led to a significant increase in medical interventions including induction of labour and caesarean section’.
We go on to say this:
‘The AFFIRM trial, with its negative result, has made an important contribution to our current knowledge. Further research into this important topic is always needed’ and then this…’The risks posed by increased interventions need to be balanced by their potential benefits. This study did not demonstrate that the interventions tested provide the benefits sought in relation to reducing stillbirth or perinatal mortality’.
In our statement we do not talk about any ‘marginal benefits’, which is the description used by the authors. It appears that the article you have read and link to in your email Christine is a brief article written by one of the journalists who writes for Midwives magazine, who is quoting from the study authors in her article. This article is the journalist's take on the study.
Our official RCM response and statement can be read in full here: https://www.rcm.org.uk/news-views-and-analysis/news/rcm-response-to-the-publication-of-the-affirm-trial-in-the-lancet
We have received some direct positive feedback about our response from a number of midwives, they have felt that it provides clarity for them in responding to the results of the AFFIRM trial. The RCM will be involved in ongoing discussions and work in shaping how maternity services in the UK can best respond to the findings of this trial.
I am happy to discuss this further through email,
Best wishes
Mary
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1
|