Monday, February 17, 2014

Mechanism of labour

Here is a video demonstrating the mechanism of normal birth.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Model pelvis

I have found this great wee paper model pelvis which could be a wonderful resource for midwifery students. I am posting the link here

There is also a good wee model (and a bit simpler) in the Hesperian Book for Midwives on page 448 and 449. The chapter on homemade tools will download if you click this link . It is a book written for midwifery students in developing countries who may not have limited access to resources.

This is another resource for students to build clay model pelvis. It may be useful but seems to require some precast pieces.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

I am in the top 20 Midwifery Blogs

Not sure how this happened by my blog has been chosen as one of the top 20 midwifery blogs for 2012. Many thanks to everyone who voted for my blog in the pole.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

NZCOM conference August 2012

I had a lovely time at the NZCOM conference 24th to the 26th August. I was lucky enough to be able to present at a concurrent session on the first day and had a good audience who seemed interested in the topic.
I was asked if I would make my presentation available and so I have loaded it to slideshare and I am sharing it here.
The topic is around communities of practice, and the learning that can happen when midwives are able to engage with a variety or different practice groups. I am also interested in learning that happens when individuals or groups have differing opinions. While it is lovely to agree with people this does not always lead to improved understanding and new learning. When someone has a different opinion this starts us to wonder and is often the stimulus to either reinforce and be strong in our own understanding or perhaps to move our thinking and develop a whole new way of looking at things. This is topic I find interesting. I think it has implications for how health professionals can work together and collaborate.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Unethical marketing practices by Formula Manufacturers

In NZ formula companies are becoming bolder in their marketing practices. Just recieved in my postbox today from Pfizer (who manufacture SMA amongst other things) promotional material for S26 Gold. amongst other things they are offering me free samples of Newborn formula as well as follow on formula. I have a form I can fax back to them to request these samples. The fax number given is 09 489 6240. This is the statement about how the company see this sitting within the Code of Practice for marketing of infant formula :
""These samples have been provided under the provisions of Article 7.3 of the Intfant Nutrition Council Code of Practice for the Marketing if Infant Formula (I will leave you to read that from the code linked here). Where the suitability of a product is being assesed for an individual infant, the professionsal evaluation will always include a follow-up meeting with the mother of the infant; The product samples of infant formula products should be kept out of public view;
""These samples are not to be resold of taken for personal use by healthcare professionals or other staff;
 If Pfizer grants this request for infant formula units, Pfizer may make inquiries of our staff periodically and may request reasonable documentation in support of the number of formula units requested, or actually recieved, by my institution or Healthcare System;
 "Professional evaluation" applie to one or all of the following situations: *Analysis or products (ingredients, taste, nutritional profile);
*Trial preparation and mixing of infant formula products (includes preparation and mixing instructions to mothers);
 *Investigation or development projects, using sound methodology and involveing a numver of infants;
 *A thorough assessement of the suitability of a product for the individual infant, including acceptance by the infant, when mothers have made the informed choice to use infant formula.""

This is implying that these free samples are being distrbuted as some sort of pseudo scientific research process rather than simple marketing of what is a very expensive brand of infant formula. If midwives are unsure of the benefits or risks of formula feeding they need to assess this through reliable, unbiased information sources, not through the marketing processes of formula companies. The reason companies supply free samples is to increase their sales, not to conduct research. This is the information midwives and women need, prepared for the UK but is also applicable and useful in New Zealand. I interpret this as a violation of the Code of Marketing of breast milk substitutes and welcome your thoughts on this. I am worried for New Zealand Mothers and babies if this is allowed to go unchallenged. Perhaps we need to bombard their fax. the number again is 09 489 6240 See this about the unethical practices of formula manufacturers, this is from the Philipines however this type of activity occurs here too. Here the formula companies justify their marketing processses.


Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Letter to the editorial board of the British Journal of Midwifery.

A week ago, when I initially wrote about my alarm and astonishment with the BJM awards and then finding out about Cow & Gate sponsored study days for midwives I had no real idea of the prevalence of corporate sponsorship, by infant formula companies and their subsidiaries, in the continuing education of health professionals in the UK. My amazement and astonishment has grown daily since then and I have to admit to feeling an enormous sense of despair about the whole thing as this is much larger than I had ever imagined it could be. It seems that without proper government control the particular infant formula manufacturers have managed to associate themselves intimately with health professionals on every level from the College right through to individual practitioners and are an accepted part of the culture of continuing professional development in the UK. This level of corporate sponsorship is a breach of Article 7.2 as this level of support for education of health professionals is a significant financial and material inducement. One just has to look at this video from the Learning Curve, Danone, which is associated with Cow & Gate to see how the formula products are being promoted while the attendees are engaged in the workshop learning objectives. As far at the study days organised by the British Journal of Midwifery are concerned it seems that midwives are not aware that they are being funded and supported by Cow and Gate, regardless of how open you feel you have been about this. It is evident in the comments received on this group from midwives who had no idea. Midwives have a right to know where their study is being funded from. For some this may not be a concern, they may feel that they can “take the money and run” ( it is essentially a gift of money, study which would otherwise be a significant cost is free) without being unduly influenced. The formula manufacturers clearly have a different opinion, as they would not offer this service if they did not feel that they would get something out of it. There is also a large body of evidence which identifies that prescribers are influence in their prescribing patterns even by seemingly insignificant gifts from a particular company (Richter, 2005; Sandall. 2008). The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), an international body monitoring the the Code have a position statement of sponsorship and conflicts of interest. They state “ IBFAN believes that: Conferences, seminars, workshops or other meetings that deal with any aspect of infant and young child health and nutrition should not be financially or materially sponsored in any way, directly or indirectly by companies that are engaged in the production, marketing or distribution of baby milks, foods or products represented to be used for infant or young child feeding" In addition they state “All health care workers including health professionals and their associations (should) to avoid accepting any donations or funds, offers of assistance in cash or kind from companies with a commercial interest in infant and young child health and development, particularly in the feeding of babies”.
You ask how in particular I feel the code is being breached and suggest that Nestle are a particular case in point, suggesting that other formula manufacturers are above reproach and therefore should not be considered in the same category as Nestle. From my very brief sojourn into the situation in the UK at present I can see that Cow and Gate are very from above reproach in the promotion of their products in the UK. Within this report from the baby feeding law group there are several instances where Cow and Gate and Aptamil, who are affiliated with Danone have been identified as not complying with the Code. I myself found one image on Flickr, taken in 2011 where Cow and Gate advertising on a baby change mat, in a shopping mall change room, does not appear to comply with that companies requirements under the Code. Where is the information on that breast is best? While it is advertising follow on formula and not newborn formula the distinction is not clear. The impression is that Cow and Gate produces health active beautiful babies. The British Journal of Midwifery should not associate itself with a company who uses these tactics to promote its product in breach of the Code.
As Jane Sandall (2008) describes, the midwife – woman relationship is a relationship of trust. Women expect their midwives to act in their best interest, not under the influence of advertising from a formula manufacturer. IN addition I would suggest midwives expect their journal to provide evidence based information and provide them with information which they can then use as a basis for sharing with women. Information on infant formula in midwifery journal should be scientific evidence based information not promotion of a particular brand of formula. I believe formula advertising anywhere in a midwifery journal is unacceptable.

Richter, J. (2005). Conflicts of interest and policy implementation. Reflections from the fields of health and infant feeding. Geneva, IBFAN- GIFA
Sandall, J. (2008).No such thing as a free lunch. Midwifery. 123 – 125.

Number of visitors to this page

View My Stats