Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35633754›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2022

Why use Appreciative Inquiry? Lessons learned during COVID-19 in a UK maternity service.

Rachel Arnold, Clare Gordon, Edwin van Teijlingen, Sue Way, Preeti Mahato

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of midwifery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rachel ArnoldCentre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Clare GordonFaculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.
Edwin van TeijlingenCentre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Sue WayCentre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Preeti MahatoCentre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Choosing the 'right' research method is always an important decision. It affects the type of study questions that can be answered. In addition, the research method will have an impact on the participants - how much of their time it takes, whether the questions seem important to them and whether there is any benefit in taking part. This is especially important when conducting research with staff in health services. This article is a reflection on the process of using Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in a study that explored staff wellbeing in a UK maternity unit. We share our key learnings to help others decide if AI will fit their research aims, as well as highlight issues in its design and conduct. We discuss our experience of using AI,the strengths and limitations of this approach, and conclude with points to consider if you are thinking about using AI. Although a study team was actively involved in decisions, this paper is largely based on reflections by the first author, the researcher conducting the field work in the maternity services.

Indexed as

appreciative inquirycritical reflectionhealthcare staffmaternitytransformational changewellbeing

Identifiers

PMID35633754
PMCPMC9118624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.