Search

Introduction: Impacted fetal head (IFH) is a challenging complication of cesarean section (CS) associated with significant morbidity. Training opportunities for IFH have been reported as inconsistent and inadequate. This study assessed the validity of a novel birth simulator for IFH at cesarean section. Material and methods: Obstetricians and midwives collaborated with model‐making company, Limbs & Things (UK), to modify the original PROMPT Flex® simulator and develop a new "Enhanced CS Module" for IFH at cesarean section. Changes included addition of a retractable uterus and restricted pelvic inlet, and the fetal mannequin was modified to allow accurate limb articulation and flexion at the waist. Obstetricians and midwives from three maternity units in Southwest England were individually recorded, each undertaking three simulated scenarios of IFH at cesarean section. Obstetricians were asked to deliver the fetal head and midwives, to perform a vaginal push‐up. Participants completed a questionnaire on realism (face validity) and usefulness for training (content validity) with five‐point Likert scale responses. Construct validity was assessed by testing an a priori hypothesis that "experts" (consultant obstetricians with >7 years' experience) would be more likely to achieve delivery than "novices" (registrars with <7 years' experience). Performance variables were compared between groups using Chi‐square and Mann–Whitney U‐tests. Results: In all, 105 simulated scenarios were undertaken by 35 obstetricians and midwives. A range of techniques were employed to deliver the IFH including change of hand, vaginal disimpaction and reverse breech extraction. Overall, 86% (30/35) described the model as fairly (4)/very realistic (5) (median = 4, interquartile range [IQR] = 4–5). The model was considered fairly (4)/very useful (5) for training by 97% (34/35; median = 5; IQR = 5–5). Experts delivered the fetal head in all simulations (36/36) and novices delivered the head in 76.9% (30/39) (p = 0.002). Experts delivered the fetal head 58% quicker than novices (median = 66.8 s, IQR = 53–86 vs median = 104 s, IQR = 67.7–137). Conclusions: This novel birth trainer realistically simulates IFH at cesarean section and allows rehearsal of all disimpaction techniques. It was reported to be very useful for training and distinguishes between novice and expert obstetricians. Techniques for IFH are difficult to learn experientially. Simulation is likely to provide an effective and safe form of training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Beliefs about the consequences of stress, stress mindsets, are associated with health and performance outcomes under stress. This article reports the development and examination of the psychometric properties of a measure of stress mindset: The Stress Control Mindset Measure (SCMM). The measure is consistent with theory on mindsets about self‐attributes and conceptualizes stress mindset as the extent to which individuals endorse beliefs that stress can be enhancing. Methods: The study adopted a correlational cross‐sectional survey design in two student samples. Undergraduate students from an Australian university (Sample 1, N = 218) and a UK university (Sample 2, N = 214) completed the SCMM and measures of health and well‐being outcomes. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses supported a four‐factor structure and strict measurement invariance across samples (ΔCFI < 0.01). Reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and concurrent validity of the overall SCMM were supported in both samples. Incremental validity was supported for most outcomes, accounting for significantly more variance (between 2.2% and 5.9%) in health and well‐being outcomes than an existing measure. Conclusions: Current data provide preliminary support for the SCMM as a reliable and valid measure with good psychometric properties and theoretically consistent relations with health outcomes under stress. Findings provide initial evidence supporting the potential utility of the SCMM in future research examining relations between stress mindsets and health and performance outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and validate a novel 14‐item self‐completed questionnaire (in English and German) enquiring about the presence of non‐motor symptoms (NMS) during the past month in patients with craniocervical dystonia in an international multicenter study. Methods: The Dystonia Non‐Motor Symptoms Questionnaire (DNMSQuest) covers seven domains including sleep, autonomic symptoms, fatigue, emotional well‐being, stigma, activities of daily living, sensory symptoms. The feasibility and clinimetric attributes were analyzed. Results: Data from 194 patients with CD (65.6% female, mean age 58.96 ± 12.17 years, duration of disease 11.95 ± 9.40 years) and 102 age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls (66.7% female, mean age 55.67 ± 17.62 years) were collected from centres in Germany and the UK. The median total NMS score in CD patients was 5 (interquartile range 3–7), significantly higher than in healthy controls with 1 (interquartile range 0.75–2.25) (P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U‐test). Evidence for intercorrelation and convergent validity is shown by moderate to high correlations of total DNMSQuest score with motor symptom severity (TWSTRS: rs = 0.61), clinical global impression (rs = 0.40), and health‐related quality of life measures: CDQ‐24 (rs = 0.74), EQ‐5D index (rs = −0.59), and scale (rs = −0.49) (all P < 0.001). Data quality and acceptability was very satisfactory. Interpretation: The DNMSQuest, a patient self‐completed questionnaire for NMS assessment in CD patients, appears robust, reproducible, and valid in clinical practice showing a tangible impact of NMS on quality of life in CD. As there is no specific, comprehensive, validated tool to assess the burden of NMS in dystonia, the DNMSQuest can bridge this gap and could easily be integrated into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is a response by Mary Hilton to an article in the December 2007 issue of the "British Educational Research Journal" that critiqued an article of hers published in the December 2006 issue. The original article was a criticism by Hilton of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) as a means of measuring literacy internationally. Hilton feels that the examination did not account for unidimensionality and that the tests were biased both linguistically and culturally against minority children or those with inadequate English language skills. Hilton also addresses criticisms she had expressed for the texts that were chosen for the test. The PIRLS results were, Hilton states, were exaggerated by the New Labour Party and were adopted into a political agenda.