Conectar
To examine the long-term impact of large-scale training targeting midwives in a setting where they are the main female genital mutilation (FGM) practitioners. We hypothesised that trained midwives would have significantly higher knowledge, greater opposition to midwives’ involvement in this practice, and improved clinical practice in FGM prevention and care compared with non-trained midwives.
We conducted an exposure based cross-sectional study, using closed-ended and open-ended questions during phone interviews.
Khartoum State in Sudan has a high prevalence of FGM (88%) mainly performed by midwives.
Midwives who received (n=127) and did not receive FGM training (n=55).
We developed primary outcomes aligned to the three levels (reaction, learning and behaviour) of Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model for descriptive and multivariable analyses in Stata.
All the midwives interviewed were female, mostly village midwives (92%) and worked in health centres (89%). The mean age and midwifery experience was 51 years (SD=10) and 23 years (SD=12), respectively. Overall, most midwives (>90%) reported being supportive of FGM discontinuation. Midwives who had FGM training were more aware that performing FGM violates code of conduct (p=0.001) and reported to always counsel patients to abandon FGM (p
Though past trainings were associated with higher knowledge and greater opposition to midwives’ involvement in FGM, this was not translated into appropriate corrective clinical procedures among affected women during labour. The Sudan Ministry of Health invested heavily in training midwives and it would be important to investigate why trained midwives do not implement recommended FGM-related clinical management.
There have been recurring UK initiatives to increase nurse research capability but little robust evaluation of long-term effectiveness. More nurses undertake doctorates, yet few lead major funded projects. Previous research suggests potential explanations but the perspectives of nurse lead-investigators themselves have not been examined.
To explore the perceptions of nurse lead-investigators about what has helped or hindered them to lead funded research projects.
Lead investigators of research projects from major UK funders (1 Apr 2017–Sept 2022) were identified from publicly available data. University profiles were screened to identify registered nurses. Entire population was approached (no sample size calculation required). Consenting participants completed an online survey (five open questions).
A total of 65 nurse-lead investigators were identified, 36 (55%) completed the survey (20 December 2022 to 17 February 2023). Participants identified Building (multi-disciplinary) collaborations and mentorship as having been most important to their success. High-quality mentoring was also identified as most important in helping novice nurse researchers become leaders. Participants highlighted the critical importance of being supported by individuals with a track record of funding success and benefits of being situated in research-supportive environments. Lack of career pathway/infrastructure and being unable to pursue research due to competing clinical/teaching priorities were identified as most unhelpful to this group AND the most common reasons for peers not going on to lead research.
Ensuring access to mentors with an established track record is an important component of schemes to increase research capability in nurses. Funded, protected time for research and career structures that reward the significant skill development required to succeed in a competitive, multi-disciplinary funding arena is important.
Interdisciplinary collaboration and mentorship by experienced researchers are critical to success and should be incorporated into future interventions to increase research capability in nurses. No patient or public contribution (as exploring a professional issue).
FreshRSS 