FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2247204403> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2247204403 abstract "Baum (1990) in a perspicacious review of the ethics of clinical research points out the impossible dilemma facing clinical researchers:'... If they rigorously attempt comparative tests of new and existing therapies on patient-subjects they will be accused of using the sick to gain knowledge. If they apply an unvalidated therapy to patients in general without previous controlled trials, they will be accused of taking risks with people's health....'He goes on to point out that '...much, if not most, of contemporary clinical practice is essentially based on forms of guesswork. Many acceptable routine forms of treatment have not been properly scientifically validated...' Baum believes that the time has arrived when the guessing has to stop.Waterbirth in the UK began in the 1980s as an unvalidated therapy. The dilemma elucidated by Baum is modified by the fact that waterbirth studies do not use the sick as instruments to gain knowledge. Only low risk mothers are ever studied. They are not generally sick, although it is, of course, possible for the health status of the mother and/or the baby to become compromised during labour and delivery. Usually, though, this would result in the mother leaving the water for assisted delivery in bed or operating room.With regard to the other horn of the dilemma, there have been a number of calls for randomised controlled trials to answer questions about the safety of waterbirth (e.g. Atalla and Weaver, 1995; Kitzinger, 1995a,b, Nikodem, 1999). There are those (Garland and Jones, 1994, 1997) who have reservations about such trials. As the author of this report is the Jones in 'Garland and Jones', it is important to be clear on the reasoning behind these reservations.The first issue centres on the fact that the modern Western lifestyle means that Western women have relatively few opportunities to give birth. This being so, it seems unreasonable to randomly assign them to an arm of a trial in which the mode of delivery is inconsistent with their wishes (i.e. allocating them to the mode of delivery that they least prefer).The second issue concerns the question of non-compliance by the mother if she is asked to deviate from her preferred birth plan. The subject is unresearched but the suspicion exists that non-compliance may arise even if the mother has consented to deviate from her preferred birth plan (e.g. has consented to join a randomised, controlled trial). This may happen because the mother experiences an altered state of consciousness during labour. Extension of this line of thought suggests the possibility that psychosomatic responses may, in extreme cases, impair the progress of labour.Nevertheless, the need to promote evidence-based midwifery practice has driven certain maternity departments to monitor the respective outcomes of the two types of delivery. Some of these studies have been reported in the British professional literature (Burns and Greenish, 1993; Garland and Jones, 1994, 1997; Nightingale, 1994, 1995; Burke and Kilfoyle, 1996).However, Garland and Jones (1997) point out that it is impossible to generalise these findings unless adequate multi-centre data becomes available for analysis. At present, relatively minor differences in data definition and collection impede full comparison between the existing published papers. Alderdice, Renfrew and Marchant et al (1995) revealed that many maternity units did not collect comparative data or, indeed, any at all.To address this problem a five-centre pilot audit was carried out from January 1st, 1998 through December 31st, 1998 at the Birth Units of the following Hospitals:Wlingdon Hospital, Uxbridge, West LondonThe Maidstone Hospital, Maidstone, KentNorthampton General Hospital, NorthamptonThe Hospital of St. John and St. Elizabeth, St John's Wood, North LondonTorbay General Hospital, Torquay, South Devon" @default.
• W2247204403 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2247204403 creator A5030047315 @default.
• W2247204403 date "2000-01-01" @default.
• W2247204403 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2247204403 title "Collaborative Birth Audit, 1998. Comparing waterbirth with dry birth" @default.
• W2247204403 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2247204403 type Work @default.
• W2247204403 sameAs 2247204403 @default.
• W2247204403 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2247204403 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2247204403 hasAuthorship W2247204403A5030047315 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C199521495 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C2778496695 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C111472728 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C121955636 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C138885662 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C144133560 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C15744967 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C199521495 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C2778496695 @default.
• W2247204403 hasConceptScore W2247204403C71924100 @default.
• W2247204403 hasLocation W22472044031 @default.
• W2247204403 hasOpenAccess W2247204403 @default.
• W2247204403 hasPrimaryLocation W22472044031 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W1521058274 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W153851283 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W1976567746 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W1977999996 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W1990229715 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W1998199727 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2029038584 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2110567592 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2125738678 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2140250647 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2157039257 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2210359842 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2333073825 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2339361401 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2346386731 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2378133064 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2417254322 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2421588171 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2466395481 @default.
• W2247204403 hasRelatedWork W2616487373 @default.
• W2247204403 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2247204403 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2247204403 magId "2247204403" @default.
• W2247204403 workType "article" @default.