Search

Why you should read this article: • To understand a collaborative learning model for developing 'training the trainer' courses • To develop training programmes on indigenising systematic reviews to local contexts • To gain insights into adult learning and teaching strategies Background: Developing a workforce with the skills to produce and make judicious use of evidence for policy and practice decisions requires trainers who can tailor evidence and training to policy and practice priorities. Aim: To describe how a collaborative learning model adapted a systematic review course to suit Indian nurse educators and research scholars in the conduct and use of systematic reviews. Discussion: A collaborative learning team of academics and research scholars brought together expertise in nursing education in India, and evidence synthesis in India and the UK. Participants found the course was highly beneficial, enhanced independent and critical thinking, and instilled them with the confidence and skills to deliver such courses to Indian researchers, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Conclusion: Contextualising materials and methods to participants' experiences made learning more relatable. The use of adult learning approaches enabled participants to apply the same approaches when leading training in their own institutions and underpinned long-term sustainable working relationships between facilitators and learners, leading to new studies and new resources to support evidence-informed decision-making. Implications for practice: An educational intervention on 'indigenising systematic reviews' with online collaborative learning can produce improvements in the knowledge and skills of participants. Advantages of this educational approach include its flexibility, active involvement of participants and sustainable partnership building. The principles and methods used could be replicated in any setting to train trainers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

sutcliffe k., caird j., kavanagh j., rees r., oliver k., dickson k., woodman j., barnett-paIge e. & thomas j. (2012) Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(11), 2376-2386. Abstract Aims. A report of a systematic review of reviews which examines the impact of having midwives-led maternity care for low-risk women, rather than physicians. Background. A rising birth rate, increasing complexity of births, and economic constraints pose difficulties for maternity services in the UK. Evidence about the most effective, cost-effective, and efficient ways to give maternity services is needed. Data sources. Searches were carried out in August-September 2009 of ten electronic databases, 16 key nursing and research websites, and reference lists of 56 relevant reviews. We also contacted 38 experts for information. No date restrictions were employed. Review methods. A narrative review of systematic reviews or 'meta review' was conducted using transparent and systematic procedures to limit bias at all stages. Systematic reviews that compared midwife-led care during pregnancy and birth with physician-led care were eligible for inclusion. Results. Three meta-analytic reviews were included. Midwife-led care for low-risk women was found to be better for a range of maternal outcomes, reduced the number of procedures in labour, and increased satisfaction with care. For some maternal, foetal, and neonatal outcomes reviews found no evidence that care led by midwives is different to that led by physicians. No adverse outcomes associated with midwife-led care were identified. Conclusions. For low-risk women, health and other benefits can result from having their maternity care led by midwives rather than physicians. Moreover, there appear to be no negative impacts on mothers and infants receiving midwife-led care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]