1,721,790 research outputs found
Smith, Lisa
No full textcurrentPostdoctoral Fellow (University of Ottawa)
Ph.D. Sociology (Carleton University)
M.A. Sociology (Concordia University)
B.A. Criminology (Simon Fraser University)
Douglas College Faculty member since 2015.
Lisa Smith is an Instructor in the Department of Sociology at Douglas College. Her research interests include: sexual and reproductive health (with a focus on contraception and menstruation), gender-based violence, and gender, sex, and technology. Lisa is a devoted and passionate educator and scholar, who remains actively engaged within her community and many of her projects involve collaborations with community groups, government, and advocacy organizations. Her work has appeared in a variety of peer-reviewed publications and edited collections, including Studies in the Maternal, Social Compass, and Girlhood Studies. She is a co-editor on two forthcoming publications, Gender, Sex, Tech! An Intersectional Feminist Guide (with Jill Fellows) and Northern Blood: The Politics of Menstruation in Canada (with Francesca Scala). In addition to publishing in academic venues, Lisa works on an ongoing basis to support knowledge dissemination and public engagement through collaborative events and outreach. Recent events include, SHIFT: Tracing the Social Impacts of COVID-19 and Menstrual Research Day.
Lisa is a co-investigator on a SSHRC partnership grant running out of McGill University entitled: iMPACTS: Collaborations to Address Sexual Violence on Campus. Her ongoing work with iMPACTS involves analyses of sexual violence policies within the post-secondary context, tracing the social impacts of COVID-19 on students, and understanding data gaps in technology-facilitated sexual violence. She is a co-investigator on a research project entitled, ‘Menstruate, Advocate, Repeat.’ This project examines the menstrual equity movement in Canada and explores the orientation and experience of advocates and activists. As part of this project, Lisa is also building an online archive that seeks to highlight menstruation activism and political advocacy in Canada, in the past and present. Lisa has many other active open research collaborations with her fellow colleagues, students, and members within the community sector
Dataset for the Southampton doctoral thesis 'Factors influencing midwives' views and decisions about outpatient induction of labour'
No full textIndications for induction of labour between July 2015 and June 2018 are included in the data file IOL_indications.csv. Characteristics of those eligible for OPIOL are provided in the file eligible_for_OPIOL.csv. Clinical outcomes of women who commenced the OPIOL pathway are provided in offered_and_accepted_OPIOL.csv. Six interview transcripts are also included, transcribed from audio recordings into Microsoft Word. Participant information and consent forms have also been included.</span
Factors influencing midwives’ views and decisions about outpatient induction of labour with vaginal dinoprostone
No full textThe research presented in this thesis explores midwives’ views and decisions about outpatient induction of labour to avoid prolonged pregnancy using vaginal dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2). Over 33 per cent of pregnant women underwent induction of labour in England and Wales in 2019/20 – an increase of 60 per cent over the past 10 years. The resultant demands on capacity or inpatient care have led many Trusts to implement outpatient induction of labour (OPIOL). The limited evidence available suggests women are highly satisfied with this approach although others express ambivalence about going home and prefer inpatient management. Staff also influence uptake of any intervention yet there is a dearth of evidence that considers their views and decisions about OPIOL. Critical realist discourse analysis was used to explore aspects of physical and social reality that mediate midwives’ views and decisions about OPIOL within a large teaching hospital in the South of England. Descriptive statistics were used to contextualise OPIOL outcomes within overall induction of labour activity. Semi-structured interviews were then used to explore midwives’ views and decisions about OPIOL. The findings demonstrate that few women had the opportunity to experience OPIOL and women eligible for the intervention were not offered it routinely. While midwives’ talk orientated towards choice and personalisation and normalising birth discourses, risk and safety discourses featured heavily in their talk. Midwives sought sanctuary in the safety net of their organisational guideline to determine women’s eligibility for outpatient management but remained uneasy about the possibility of uterine hyperstimulation and lack of surveillance at home. Some midwives were also uncertain about how to interpret the significance of earlier assessments for reduced fetal movements in pregnancy even when findings had been normal. This small, local study contributes to a wider body of literature about risk work tensions in maternity care decision-making. A deeply pernicious fear of adverse outcomes exists amongst staff, and they are rightly cautious when undertaking any risk assessments. Increasing fetal surveillance is seen as a way to provide assurance of fetal wellbeing. The findings of this study provide support for an induction of labour team, to enhance familiarity and confidence around decision-making about OPIOL with vaginal dinoprostone. Midwives may also benefit from additional multi-professional support when making decisions. Alternatively, catheter balloon induction may be preferable to staff as the risk of uterine hyperstimulation is minimised
Outpatient induction of labour with prostaglandins: Safety, effectiveness and women’s views
No full textBackground: Nearly 28% of women underwent induction of labour in England in 2015-16. Women frequently report delays and poor experiences, and the process can put additional pressure on to busy labour wards. Outpatient induction of labour (OPIOL) enables women to return home to await the onset of contractions. Aim: This literature review aims to explore the current research evidence base about OPIOL using prostaglandins and to identify gaps in the evidence base. Outcomes will be compared with those induced as inpatients. Method: An electronic search was conducted to identify relevant quantitative and qualitative studies using keywords’. Once the final studies had been identified, a narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted.Findings: Adverse outcomes were rare but the studies were not sufficiently powered to detect significant differences between outpatients and inpatients. There were some differences in cost and effectiveness between the included studies which may be explained by disparities in study design, participant characteristics and operational issues. Time avoided in hospital by outpatients ranged from 7.5 hours to 11.76 hours. Satisfaction was generally higher with OPIOL although some women expressed apprehension about being at home.Conclusion: While OPIOL with prostaglandins is acceptable to women, it is not clear whether there are significant differences in safety and effectiveness outcomes due to the low frequency of adverse perinatal events as well as methodological and quality issues of the included studies. There is a need for further UK research to compare outcomes, maternal experiences and cost effectiveness of OPIOL. <br/
- …
