Research in midwifery: are midwives their own worst enemies?
This study investigated the hypothesis that midwives will undervalue research they believed to have been undertaken by a midwife as compared with that believed to have been undertaken by an obstetrician. Eighteen midwives were asked to assess two comparable research articles on 5 criteria. Half the sample were informed that the first article was written by a midwife and the second by an obstetrician. The order of authorship was reversed for the remainder of the sample. A related t-test was carried out to compare the midwife's paper with the obstetrician's on each of the 5 criteria. These suggested that no difference was perceived between the midwife's and obstetrician's clarity of expression or expertise on the topic in question, but significant differences were found on attributed grasp of research methodology, understanding of statistical analysis and contribution to current understanding, with the midwife emerging worse on all three (t = 1.99, p < 0.05, t = 2.28, p < 0.025, t = 1.8, p < 0.05 respectively). Comparison of the overall scores also revealed that the general quality of the midwife's paper was also perceived to be poorer than the obstetrician's (t = 2.24, p < 0.025). The findings are partially explained in terms of the gender influences that operate in midwifery.
References (14)
- BallJ
Challenging practices in midwifery
Nursing Mirror
(1985) - BarrattE
Doctors' response to nursing studies
Nursing
(1990) - BondS
Midwife research and training, 1. A positive contribution to practice
Nursing Mirror
(1981) - BondS
Midwifery research and education, 2. Importance of participation
Nursing Mirror
(1981) - DolanB
Project 2000, the gender mender?
Nursing Standard
(1990) - GoldbergP
Are women prejudiced against women?
Transaction
(1968) - HartnettO et al.
Sex roles and work
Cited by (15)
Gender Differences in Original Archivos de Bronconeumología Publications, 2001-2018
2021, Archivos de BronconeumologiaLa desigualdad de género existe en las publicaciones científicas. El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la evolución histórica de las diferencias de género y factores asociados a las posiciones de las autorías de los trabajos originales de Archivos de Bronconeumología (AB).
Estudio bibliométrico de AB en el periodo 2001-2018. Se analizó el género de las autorías en cuatro escenarios: primera firma, última firma, autorías intermedias y mentorizadas. Se realizaron comparaciones por especialidad firmante, financiación recibida, carácter multicéntirico y área temática, entre otras. Se crearon modelos multivariantes ajustados por el porcentaje de médicas colegiadas en el sistema sanitario español para predecir el género femenino de la primera, intermedia y última firma.
Se analizaron 828 publicaciones, donde las mujeres figuraron como primeras autoras en 286 (34,5%) y como últimas en 169 (20,4%). Se observó un incremento gradual de mujeres como primeras autoras (p = 0,0001), pero no como últimas firmantes (p = 0,570). En general, la media de autoras mujeres aumentó con el tiempo (1,6 ± 1,4 en 2001-2005 a 3,3 ± 2,3 en 2016-2018, p = 0,0001), sin apreciarse diferencias en las medias de hombres. Los modelos multivariantes ajustados reflejaron una relación bidireccional positiva entre la primera autoría y las intermedias, y una asociación negativa entre que el primer autor haya sido español con una última autoría femenina (OR 0,57; IC95% 0,36-0,88, p = 0,012).
Se encontraron diferencias de género en varios aspectos de las autorías de AB, resumidas en una mayor participación de las mujeres como primeras firmantes e intermedias, pero no como últimas autoras.
Gender inequality exists in scientific publications. The aim of this study was to determine changing patterns in gender differences and factors associated with the positioning of authors’ names in original articles published in Archivos de Bronconeumología (AB).
We performed a bibliometric study of articles published in AB between 2001 and 2018. Author gender was analysed in four scenarios: first author, last author, middle authors, and mentee authors. Comparisons were made by authors’ specialties, funding received, multicentre studies, specialist areas, and others. Multivariate models adjusted for the percentage of registered physicians in the Spanish health system were created to predict the female gender of the first, middle, and last author.
A total of 828 publications were analysed in which women appeared as first authors in 286 (34.5%) and last authors in 169 (20.4%). A gradual increase in women as first authors was observed (P = .0001), but not as last authors (P = .570). Overall, the average number of female authors increased over time (from 1.6 ± 1.4 in 2001-2005 to 3.3 ± 2.3 in 2016-2018, P = .0001), with no differences in male averages. The adjusted multivariate models reflected a positive bi-directional relationship between the first author and the middle authors, and a negative association between the first author being Spanish and the last author being female (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.36-0.88, P = .012).
Gender differences were found in various aspects of authorship in AB, summarized by a greater participation of women as first and intermediate authors, but not as last authors.
An exploration of midwives' attitudes to research and perceived barriers to research utilisation
1996, MidwiferyObjective: to explore midwives' views about research and their perceived barriers to research utilisation.
Setting: thirty-two midwives from four midwifery units in the north west of England. The units ranged in size from a small district unit (52 midwives, and 1200 deliveries per annum), to a large regional centre (290 midwives, 6500 deliveries per annum).
Methods: midwives' opinions concerning research were explored using focus group interviews; within the interviews midwives were asked to discuss how they viewed the relevance of research to midwifery care, the constraints which they felt prevented them from delivering research-based care and existing and potential methods of disseminating research.
Findings: there was a consensus among the midwives that they aspired to deliver research-based care. However, there are clearly a number of barriers preventing this. Research was poorly accessible to most midwives, both in terms of its physical location and complexity.
Furthermore, midwives felt they lacked the knowledge and skills to appraise research, and lacked the confidence to judge when research should be implemented.
Conclusions: the current trend to demedicalise childbirth demands that midwives become proficient users of research. However, the means of disseminating research findings to midwives in the north west of England does not meet their needs.
Research-mindedness in the radiography profession
1996, RadiographyPurpose: With the move to an all graduate entry into the radiography profession and an emphasis on research activity at undergraduate and postgradu
Methods: One hundred and eighty-five questionnaires were distributed to radiographers employed in a clinical role in six hospitals. Two of the hosp
Results: Most previous research that had been carried out was related to course requirements and little had been published. The results showed a st
Conclusions: Programmes and schemes need to be developed to raise the profile of research in clinical departments and could include the setting up
Objective: in an attempt to explain the serious shortfall in published midwifery research an attempt was made to assess whether the way in which midwives construe their professional role acts as a deterrent to undertaking research.
Design: different subject experimental.
Setting: a college of nursing and midwifery in central England.
Participants: 30 midwives attending post-registration continuing education courses.
Interventions: the midwives were divided into two groups and were asked to imagine that they were interviewing a candidate for a midwifery post following Asch's (1946) paradigm. The candidate had been described by her referee using six adjectives. Five of these were common to both groups of subjects, but the sixth descriptor for one group was ‘good clinician’, while for the other group it was ‘good researcher’.
Measurements and findings: the groups were asked to assess how much of each of 16 dimensional traits their candidate possessed. Analysis of the findings, using unrelated t-tests, suggested that if the candidate had been described as a poor researcher, it was also assumed that the candidate was more ambitious, a poorer communicator, less kind, stronger, more logical, less emotional, more confident, less popular, less compassionate, more rational, more organised and more analytical than the candidate described as a good clinician.
Implications for practice: these findings suggest that if midwives are to become more research active they can only do so if they sacrifice their constructs of themselves as good midwives. If midwifery is to accept research as part of its responsibility it appears that there has to be a radical shift in predispositional assumptions to integrate the traits required for good clinical practice, sound research and femaleness?
A factor analytic study of midwives' attitudes to research
1995, MidwiferyMidwives are increasingly being encouraged to undertake research activities at various levels, as a routine part of their job. However, despite topdown directives to this end, there is some evidence that relatively little research is published and reasons, such as lack of time, confidence and skill have been put forward to explain the shortfall. While these reasons may be valid obstacles, it is also conceivable that they are manifestations of a set of underlying attitudes to research in midwifery. If attitudes are assumed to be predictors of behaviour, then it may be relevant to study midwives' attitudes to research more closely in order to identify whether these are responsible in some measure for the short-fall in research output. To this end, a national survey of 397 midwives was undertaken to establish their attitudes to research. The results were subjected to factor analysis, using an orthogonal solution, in order to establish whether any coherent source components existed in the sample's attitude responses. The factor analysis yielded four coherent factors, which were (i) other health care professionals' views of the value of midwifery research; (ii) the value of research for midwifery practice; (iii) the research role of the midwife; (iv) midwives' competence to carry out research. On further analysis the first two factors were also found to be significantly related to midwives' likelihood of undertaking research and publishing research findings. These factors could form the basis for future attitude change and staff development and training programmes as a means by which midwifery research output could be increased.
Despite increasing professional pressure on midwives to make their clinical practice research based, there remains a considerable amount of clinical activity which relies only on historical ritual rather than on rational scientific evidence. This apparent failure to integrate research into practice has generated a lot of debate regarding its cause. One widely accepted reason for midwives' non-use of empirical findings is simply that a large proportion of the workforce does not have the knowledge and training in the necessary skills to enable them to assess the value of published articles. Clearly the cost in time and human resources involved in providing a thorough training for the entire midwifery workforce in research skills would probably be unnecessary for the majority of midwives who simply want to be able to translate published research into their clinical practice. Consequently, a more pragmatic approach might be to assess the value of brief training days in developing midwives' competencies in reading research articles critically as a precursor to facilitating the integration of theory and practice. If the value of such courses could be demonstrated, then it is conceivable that study days of this type might be made more widely available for all midwifery personnel. This study investigated the effectiveness of one such study day in (a) modifying the participating midwives' evaluations of a published research article in accord with those of expert judges and (b) influencing the longer term use by the participants of published research. The day provided a brief introduction to basic research techniques both in theory and in practice, as well as a set of structured guidelines for evaluating research articles. The findings with regard to both the above stated aims were highly significant, suggesting that brief study days are effective in developing midwives' critical apprasial skills in line with a set of specified, realistic criteria. While no information is currently available on the longer term impact of the training day of participants' use of research findings within their clinical practice, a follow-up survey of the participants suggested that their frequency of reading research had increased significantly (T = 18, p<0.005), they felt more confident about evaluating the articles (T = 0, p<0.005) and had identified current practices which needed to be reviewed in the light of their reading (T = 5.5, p<0.025). It is concluded that brief courses can facilitate the first stage in the research-into-practice process.