Sex talk? overcoming barriers about sex and contraception after childbirth

Anecdotal evidence tells professionals that childbirth is the best form of contraception. However, sexual health problems are the very common after childbirth with Barrett et al (2000) arguing that only 15% of women who have a postnatal sexual problem reported discussing it with a health professional. As health professionals with a predilection for the ‘clinical’ and the ‘prescriptive’ we organise antenatal classes to discuss bathing the baby and post partum reunions to recount birth stories, but often fail to address sexual health problems and contraception after birth.(Glazener 1997). Many women who have carefully used contraception for years prior to pregnancy are often not helped to re-engage with the issues following birth. This would seem to be a particular problem for the most vulnerable parents such as adolescent mothers and their partners (Social Exclusion Unit 1999, 2004) where some young women go on to have more than one baby in a short time period (Reeves 2003). The focus of this paper is to explore the apparent general failure of health professionals to discuss sex after childbirth and provide information regarding reliable contraception. Glazener (1997) tells us that health professionals are encouraged to educate and prepare patients antenatally, for example to be trained to identify problems and deal with them openly and sympathetically. What is brought into question is why this form of rigorous support is not extended to providing sexual health advice in the immediate and often vulnerable postnatal period and why this provision is not a priority for some groups. The paper will explore if this situation caused by a lack of training or is it a symptom of our culture and a British attitude towards sex and contraception.

Interprofessional attitudes amongst undergraduate students in the health professions: a longitudinal questionnaire survey

Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) introduced at the beginning of pre-registration training for healthcare professionals attempts to prevent the formation of negative interprofessional attitudes which may hamper future interprofessional collaboration. However, the potential for IPE depends, to some extent, on the readiness of healthcare students to learn together. Objectives: To measure changes in readiness for interprofessional learning, professional identification, and amount of contact between students of different professional groups; and to examine the influence of professional group, student characteristics and an IPE course on these scores over time. Design: Annual longitudinal panel questionnaire survey at four time-points of pre-registration students (n = 1683) drawn from eight healthcare groups from three higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK. Results: The strength of professional identity in all professional groups was high on entry to university but it declined significantly over time for some disciplines. Similarly students’ readiness for interprofessional learning was high at entry but declined significantly over time for all groups, with the exception of nursing students. A small but significant positive relationship between professional identity and readiness for interprofessional learning was maintained over time. There was very minimal contact between students from different disciplines during their professional education programme. Students who reported gaining the least from an IPE course suffered the most dramatic drop in their readiness for interprofessional learning in the following and subsequent years; however, these students also had the lowest expectations of an IPE course on entry to their programme of study. Conclusion: The findings provide support for introducing IPE at the start of the healthcare students’ professional education to capitalise on students’ readiness for interprofessional learning and professional identities, which appear to be well formed from the start. However, this study suggests that students who enter with negative attitudes towards interprofessional learning may gain the least from IPE courses and that an unrewarding experience of such courses may further reinforce their negative attitudes.

The interprofessional practitioner: changing professional identity in social work

Twenty years ago the first joint training programme in learning disability nursing and social work was established as a collaborative project to develop practitioners able to work holistically with people with learning disabilities. Since then a number of programmes have continued this work and more recently the approach has developed in the mental health specialism. These programmes have changed the nature of singular social work education and created a new region of knowledge (Bernstein, 2000) for those who have experienced them. What began as a radical experiment in interprofessional education has been sustained by a strong commitment to the belief that the practitioners who qualify from such programmes are well equipped to support people with learning disabilities in changing and multi-professional services. As with much interprofessional education, however, there is an ongoing need to build an evidence base linking such education with successful outcomes in practice. This paper presents and explores the outcomes of a doctoral research study aimed at evaluating the impact of joint training in learning disability nursing and social work on the professional identity, skills and working practices of practitioners who undertook it. The research was undertaken with almost fifty jointly trained practitioners and involved a national survey followed by semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that practitioners who experience the dual socialisation inherent in this type of training found both gains and losses in the process. They appear to emerge, however, with a confidence, resilience and breadth of knowledge which were part of the early vision for this transformative approach to professional training. Bernstein B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Revised Edition. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield (USA).

Absence makes the professional try harder? Meeting the needs of socially excluded young men who become fathers

Research on socially excluded young fathers has been minimally addressed in the literature (SEU 1999, 2004). Indeed, research on young parents which informs health and social care professionals is often presented ‘through the eyes of the mother’ (Reeves 2006). Young parents in general and young fathers in particular are notoriously difficult to gain access to and engage with (Tyrer et al 2005) particularly if they have had previous negative involvement with the statutory services. Moreover, as Daniel and Taylor (1999, 2001, 2003) point out, professionals working in the health and care services often have an intense ‘maternal’ focus and this often excludes fathers from discussion and decisions about their children. The focus of this paper, drawing on two narrative studies of young fathers aged between 15-24 from the US and USA, is to evaluate the features of professional relationships that young fathers describe as finding helpful. Indeed, the findings discuss moving away from a culture of parenting classes, which all the young men interviewed described as finding problematical and in some cases embarrassing, to a culture of support which actively draws on their strengths and helps them become providers for their new families.

Continuing Professional Development: rhetoric and practice in the NHS

This article explores the experience of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) by supervisory-level clinical staff in the National Health Service. Four main themes are highlighted in the literature, namely the nature and experience of CPD, its relationship with human resource management practices and in particular in career development and planning. These themes are examined utilising sources of (triangulated) empirical data based on a 2500 sample survey conducted across five NHS Trusts. A key finding was that responsibility for learning and development was perceived as belonging to the individual rather than the organisation. Other findings concern a lack of resource-based commitment by the organisation to CPD for clinical staff undertaking supervisory-level roles and evidence of 'credentialism' with its emphasis on seeking certificated qualifications. The findings raise concerns about the potential for clinical staff to become disillusioned and to perceive a potential breach in their psychological contract because of problems in reconciling their own interests with those of their professional body, and that of their employer in relation to CPD.