Mother knows best: Developing a consumer led, evidence informed, research agenda for maternity care

Midwifery

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 705-712

  Cheyne, Helen ^a   McCourt, Christine ^b   Semple, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Maternity care; Patient and public involvement; Research prioritisation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESS; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOTHER; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PILOT STUDY; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES; MOTHERS; PILOT PROJECTS; PREGNANCY; RESEARCH DESIGN; SCOTLAND;

EID: 84892517796     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.06.015     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bhavnani V., Newburn M. Left to Your Own Devices: The Postnatal Care Experiences of 1260 First-time Mothers 2010, NCT, London.
2. Beake S., McCourt C., Bick D. Women's views of hospital and community-based postnatal care; the good, the bad and the indifferent: women's views of hospital and community-based postnatal care; the good, the bad and the indifferent. Evidence Based Midwifery 2005, 3(2):69-72.
3. Chalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patientα. British Medical Journal 1995, 310:1315.
4. Delaney B. Is society losing control of the medical research agendaα. British Medical Journal 2006, 332:1063-1064.
5. House of Commons Health Committee, 1992. Second Report on the Maternity Services (The Winterton Report). HMSO, London.
6. Lloyd K., White J. Democratizing clinical research. Nature 2011, 474:277-278.
7. McCourt C., Beake S. Establishing Research Priorities in Maternity and Primary Care. A Report to NHS London 2000, Thames Valley University, London.
8. McCourt C., Morgan P., Youll P. Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research. Health Research Policy and Systems 2006, 4(94(9)):1-13.
9. Oliver S., Armes D., Gyte G. Evaluation of Public Influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 2006, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
10. Petit-Zeman S., Firkins L., Scadding J.W. The James Lind Alliance: tackling research mismatches. The Lancet 2010, 376:667-669.
11. Reason P. Three approaches to participative inquiry. Handbook of Qualitative Research 1994, 324-334. Sage, London. N.,.K. Denzin, Y.,.S. Lincoln (Eds.).
12. Scadding J., Chalmers I. The James Lind Alliance: tackling treatment uncertainties together. RSM News 2009, 51:11.
13. Tallon D., Chard J., Dieppe P. Consumer involvement in research is essential. British Medical Journal 2000, 320:380.
14. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012. The Cochrane Collaboration. History. Available from. (accessed 09.02.12). http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/history.
15. van Teijlingen E., Pitchforth E., Bishop C., Russell E. Delphi method and nominal group technique in family planning and reproductive health research. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 2006, 32(4):249-252.