| Abstract: | Although I have highlighted some issues with this study and the wider context in which it sits. I do not believe that it is a bad piece of research per se. As above, the biggest problem with this study for me is that the researchers have omitted to discuss some of its limitations. No research is perfect, and perfection is not the aim. The aim is to increase knowledge, and this can only be done where we look at research findings alongside consideration of how they might have been affected by research design and decisions. This study shows, for the first time, that obstetric 'skills and drills' training does make a difference. On average, participants got 20.6 more questions right in a 185-question multiple-choice test after training than before. Does this mean they will be better equipped to look after women and babies in practice? We don't know. Is this the best kind of training that they could have undertaken? We don't know. What do the people who participated--and those who chose not to participate--in this study think and feel about these things? We don't know that either. But this study is a step on the road towards finding out if the courses that everybody is having to go on as a result of the CNST requirement are actually of any value, and that can surely only be a good thing. |
