Quality and significance of Australian midwifery research

Kathleen Fahy RN, RM, BN, MEd, PhD
{"title":"Quality and significance of Australian midwifery research","authors":"Kathleen Fahy RN, RM, BN, MEd, PhD","doi":"10.1016/S1448-8272(05)80013-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the quality and significance of contemporary Australian midwifery research as reported in the <em>Australian Midwifery Journal</em> 2002–2004. The evaluation involved grading the research. The ultimate aim is to recommend some research strategies and areas of focus for our discipline over the next five to 10 years. The average score for quantitative research was 2.3 out of a possible 4 (with 4 being the highest possible). The average grades for significance as evidence for practice were calculated with 1 being the highest possible grade and 5 being the lowest possible. For qualitative research, the average grade was undesirably high at 4.2 and for quantitative research it was 4.4.</p><p>The grading exercise demonstrated that our current research output is, with some exceptions, not of high enough quality to be able to create evidence for practice. Thus, our first step must be to improve the quality of both our qualitative and quantitative research. Multi-site, team based, programmatic research is recommended as a multi-pronged strategy to improve the quality of our research, enhance our research training and become successful in funding applications. A limitation of the study is that the exercise would be strengthened if two or more reviewers had completed the reviews independently.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100149,"journal":{"name":"Australian Midwifery","volume":"18 1","pages":"Pages 8-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1448-8272(05)80013-6","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1448827205800136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the quality and significance of contemporary Australian midwifery research as reported in the Australian Midwifery Journal 2002–2004. The evaluation involved grading the research. The ultimate aim is to recommend some research strategies and areas of focus for our discipline over the next five to 10 years. The average score for quantitative research was 2.3 out of a possible 4 (with 4 being the highest possible). The average grades for significance as evidence for practice were calculated with 1 being the highest possible grade and 5 being the lowest possible. For qualitative research, the average grade was undesirably high at 4.2 and for quantitative research it was 4.4.

The grading exercise demonstrated that our current research output is, with some exceptions, not of high enough quality to be able to create evidence for practice. Thus, our first step must be to improve the quality of both our qualitative and quantitative research. Multi-site, team based, programmatic research is recommended as a multi-pronged strategy to improve the quality of our research, enhance our research training and become successful in funding applications. A limitation of the study is that the exercise would be strengthened if two or more reviewers had completed the reviews independently.

澳大利亚助产学研究的质量和意义
本文的目的是评估2002-2004年《澳大利亚助产学杂志》报道的当代澳大利亚助产学研究的质量和意义。评估包括给研究打分。最终目的是为我们的学科推荐未来5到10年的一些研究策略和重点领域。定量研究的平均得分为2.3分(满分为4分)。作为实践证据的显著性的平均分数计算为1为最高可能的分数,5为最低可能的分数。定性研究的平均成绩为4.2分,而定量研究的平均成绩为4.4分。评分工作表明,除了一些例外,我们目前的研究成果质量不够高,无法为实践创造证据。因此,我们的第一步必须是提高定性和定量研究的质量。多地点、以团队为基础、程序化的研究被推荐为一种多管齐下的策略,以提高我们的研究质量,加强我们的研究培训,并在资金申请方面取得成功。该研究的一个局限性是,如果两个或更多的审稿人独立完成了审查,则该练习将得到加强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信