Care during the third stage of labour: A postal survey of UK midwives and obstetricians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are two approaches to care during the third stage of labour: Active management includes three components: administration of a prophylactic uterotonic drug, cord clamping and controlled cord traction. For physiological care, intervention occurs only if there is clinical need. Evidence to guide care during the third stage is limited and there is variation in recommendations which may contribute to differences in practice. This paper describes current UK practice during the third stage of labour.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A postal survey of 2230 fellows and members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and 2400 members of the Royal College of Midwives was undertaken. Respondents were asked about care during the third stage of labour, for vaginal and caesarean births and their views on the need for more evidence to guide care in the third stage. The data were analysed in Excel and presented as descriptive statistics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>1189 (53%) fellows and members of the RCOG and 1702 (71%) midwives responded, of whom 926 (78%) and 1297 (76%) respectively had conducted or supervised births in the last year. 93% (863/926) of obstetricians and 73% (942/1297) of midwives report 'always or usually' using active management. 66% (611/926) of obstetricians and 33% (430/1297) of midwives give the uterotonic drug with delivery of the anterior shoulder; this was intramuscular Syntometrine^®for 79% (728/926) and 86% (1118/1293) respectively. For term births, 74% (682/926) of obstetricians and 41% (526/1297) of midwives clamp the cord within 20 seconds, as do 57% (523/926) and 55% (707/1297) for preterm births. Controlled cord traction was used by 94% of both obstetricians and midwives. For caesarean births, intravenous oxytocin was the uterotonic used by 90% (837/926) of obstetricians; 79% (726/926) clamp the cord within 20 seconds for term births as do 63% (576/926) for preterm births.</p> <p>Physiological management was used 'always or usually' by 2% (21/926) of obstetricians and 9% (121/1297) of midwives. 81% (747/926) of obstetricians and 89% (1151/1297) of midwives thought more evidence from randomised trials was needed; the most popular question was when is best to clamp the cord.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Active management of the third stage of labour is widely used by both obstetricians and midwives in the UK. Syntometrine^®is usually used for vaginal births and oxytocin for caesarean births; when this is given and when the cord is clamped varies.</p

Exploring SDA sensor architectures for the surveillance of geosynchronous spacecraft

Significant changes have taken place in the space domain over the past decade, with a growing number of emerging space-faring nations and commercial actors gaining access to the operational environment. The consequential diversification of space activities has brought about a need for a reassessment of space domain awareness (SDA) capabilities. Numerous states are developing their operational capability to undertake space-based activities, with potentially widespread ramifications for the safety of spacecraft. Rendezvous and proximity operations are becoming more prevalent in the geosynchronous (GSO) region for mission lifetime extension, active removal of debris, and satellite inspection, in all cases giving rise to novel challenges for SDA systems. What's more, there remains a largely uncharacterised population of small debris in the vicinity of the GSO region, uncovered by bespoke surveys with large aperture telescopes, and posing a significant risk to active satellites. In 2022, the UK Space Agency commissioned a study into the requirements and opportunities for SDA in the UK, carried out by CGI with support from the Global Network On Sustainability In Space (GNOSIS) and UKspace. The study highlighted research and development of sovereign sensors as one of its key recommendations, both to improve the UK's sensing capability and to contribute to closing gaps in global SDA capability. To this end, we explore the key requirements for future SDA sensor architectures, with a focus on ground-based electro-optical systems for the surveillance of spacecraft in the GSO region. Archival two-line element sets are used to simulate catalogued resident space objects (RSOs) passing through a grid of surveillance regions, tasked with monitoring the neighbourhoods of high-value assets in the vicinity of the geostationary belt, while the derived population from ESA's Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference (MASTER) model is used as a basis for simulating the GSO debris field. We assess the observability of transiting RSOs from the vantage point of La Palma, Canary Islands, taking a variety of observational constraints into account, including the Earth's shadow, lunation, and the galactic plane. We examine the performance of the simulated surveillance regions in the context of comprehensive, yet cost-effective SDA provision. Estimated costs are weighed against important metrics for essential SDA tasks (e.g., catalogue maintenance , change detection, and conjunction analysis), such as the total traffic observed per night, the cadence of the observations, and the temporal coverage of registered RSOs. The results of the simulation are used to inform a discussion of key sensor architecture requirements for effective SDA of GSO assets, taking into consideration a combination of sensor characteristics (e.g., sensitivity, resolution, and wavelength band) and other factors (e.g., geographical placement, site quality, and observational strategy) influencing SDA capabilities. We provide a commentary on the advantages and limitations of the different architectures considered and conclude with a list of recommendations for the designs of future SDA systems for the protection of GSO spacecraft

What does it mean to understand a physics equation? : A study of undergraduate answers In three countries

What does it mean to understand a physics Equation?   A study of Undergraduate answers In Three countries. John Airey1,2 Josefine Grundström Lindqvist1 Rebecca Kung3 1Department of Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden 2Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Sweden 3Independent researcher, Grosse Ile, MI, USA.                                                          In this paper we are interested in how undergraduate students in the US, Australia and Sweden experience the physics equations they meet in their education. We asked over 350 students the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. The analysis resulted in eight themes (significance, origin, describe, predict, parts, relationships, calculate and explain). Each of these themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes. We suggest that when students are working with problem solving they may ask themselves these questions in order to check their holistic understanding of what the physics equations they are using represent. In continuing work we are asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning. Keywords: International Studies in Education, Physics, Higher Education Background As a discipline, physics is concerned with describing the world by constructing models, the end product of this modelling process often being an equation. Despite their importance in the representation of physics knowledge, physics equations have received surprisingly little attention in the literature. The work that has been done has tended to focus on the use of equations in problem solving (see Hsu, Brewe, Foster, &amp; Harper, 2004 for an overview and Hegde &amp; Meera, 2012 for a more recent example). One significant study is that of Sherin (2001) who examined students ability to construct equations. The majority of work suggests that many students in calculus-based physics courses focus their attention exclusively on selecting an equation and substituting in known values—so called “plug and chug” (see Tuminaro 2004). This behaviour—what Redish (1994) has termed the “Dead Leaves” approach to physics equations—has been framed as a major hurdle to students’ ability to see the bigger picture of physics. However, very little work has examined what students think it means to understand a physics equation, the only work we could locate was that of Domert et al, 2007 and Hechter, 2010. Building on these two sources this study examines student understanding of physics equations in three countries. Our research questions are: How do students in three countries say they know that they have understood a physics equation? What different disciplinary aspects of equations can be seen in an analysis of the complete set of answers to research question 1? How might a more holistic view of the understanding of equations be communicated to students? Method This qualitative study uses a research design based on minimum input and maximised output. We asked students in the US (n=83), Australia (n=168) and Sweden (n=105) the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. Using qualitative analysis techniques drawn from the phenomenographic tradition, the whole dataset was then treated as a “pool of meaning” (See Airey, 2012 for an example of this type of analysis). Analysis and Results In our analysis we initially looked for differences across countries, however it quickly became apparent that there was a range of answers that repeated across countries. This led us to treat the data as a single set. This first analysis resulted in 15 preliminary categories. These categories were later broken up and reconstructed to form eight themes: Significance, Origin, Describe, Predict, Parts, Relationships, Calculate and Explain. We suggest that each of these eight themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of the expressed student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes: 1      Significance: Why, when, where Do you know why the equation is needed? Do you know where the equation can and cannot be used? (boundary conditions/areas of physics). Do you understand what the equation means for its area of physics? What status does this equation have in physics? (fundamental law, empirical approximation, mathematical conversion, etc.). 2      Origin Do you know the historical roots of the equation? Can you derive the equation? 3      Describe/visualize Can you use the equation to describe a real-life situation? Can you describe an experiment that the equation models? Can you visualize the equation by drawing diagrams, graphs etc. 4      Predict Can you use the equation to predict? 5      Parts Can you describe the physical meaning of each of the components of the equation? How does a change in one component affect other components in the equation? Can you manipulate/rearrange the equation? 6      Other equations Can you relate this equation to other equations you know? Can you construct the equation from other equations that you know? 7      Calculate Can you use the equation to solve a physics problem? Can you use the equation to solve a physics problem in a different context than the one in which it was presented? When you use the equation to calculate an answer do you know: How your answer relates to the original variables? The physical meaning of this answer? Whether your answer is reasonable? 8      Explain Can you explain the equation to someone else? Discussion and conclusion The motivation for this study came from an experience the first author had a number of years ago. In an interview situation, students were asked in passing about whether they understood a certain equation. They replied “yes” and that the equation was “trivial”. However when questioned about what one of the terms in the equation meant and the students did not know! The students clearly meant that the equation was trivial from a mathematical point of view—they knew they could easily use the equation to “calculate stuff” so they said that they understood it. In Redish’s (1994) terms they were using the “Dead Leaves” approach to physics equations. We believe the questions we have generated in this study have the potential to help physics students who think they understand a physics equation to check whether there might be other aspects that they may not yet have considered. Our questions are based on student-generated data. Potentially physics lecturers could experience physics equations in even more complex ways. In continuing work we are therefore asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in various teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning. Acknowledgements Support from the Swedish Research Council, VR project no. 2016-04113, is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79. Domert, D., Airey, J., Linder, C., &amp; Kung, R. (2007). An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations. NorDiNa,Nordic Studies in Science Education(3), 15-28. Hechter, R. P. (2010). What does it understand the equation' really mean? Physics Education, 45(132). Hegde, B. &amp; Meera, B. N. (2012). How do they solve it? An insight into the learner's approach to the mechanism of physics problem solving. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010109 Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M., &amp; Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource Letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 72(9), 1147-1156. Redish, E. (1994). The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 62(6), 796-803. Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognitive Instruction, 19, 479-541. Tuminaro, J. (2004). A Cognitive framework for analyzing and describing introductory students' use of mathematics in physics. PhD Thesis. University of Maryland, Physics Department.

What does it mean to understand a physics equation? : A study of undergraduate answers in three countries

In this paper we are interested in how undergraduate students in the US, Australia and Sweden experience the physics equations they meet in their education. We asked over 350 students the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. The analysis resulted in eight themes (significance, origin, describe, predict, parts, relationships, calculate and explain). Each of these themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes. We suggest that when students are working with problem solving they may ask themselves these questions in order to check their holistic understanding of what the physics equations they are using represent. In continuing work we are asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning

What does it mean to understand a physics equation? : A study of undergraduate answers in three countries

In this paper we are interested in how undergraduate students in the US, Australia and Sweden experience the physics equations they meet in their education. We asked over 350 students the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. The analysis resulted in eight themes (significance, origin, describe, predict, parts, relationships, calculate and explain). Each of these themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes. We suggest that when students are working with problem solving they may ask themselves these questions in order to check their holistic understanding of what the physics equations they are using represent. In continuing work we are asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning

What does it mean to understand a physics equation? : A study of undergraduate answers In three countries

What does it mean to understand a physics Equation?   A study of Undergraduate answers In Three countries. John Airey1,2 Josefine Grundström Lindqvist1 Rebecca Kung3 1Department of Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden 2Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Sweden 3Independent researcher, Grosse Ile, MI, USA.                                                          In this paper we are interested in how undergraduate students in the US, Australia and Sweden experience the physics equations they meet in their education. We asked over 350 students the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. The analysis resulted in eight themes (significance, origin, describe, predict, parts, relationships, calculate and explain). Each of these themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes. We suggest that when students are working with problem solving they may ask themselves these questions in order to check their holistic understanding of what the physics equations they are using represent. In continuing work we are asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning. Keywords: International Studies in Education, Physics, Higher Education Background As a discipline, physics is concerned with describing the world by constructing models, the end product of this modelling process often being an equation. Despite their importance in the representation of physics knowledge, physics equations have received surprisingly little attention in the literature. The work that has been done has tended to focus on the use of equations in problem solving (see Hsu, Brewe, Foster, &amp; Harper, 2004 for an overview and Hegde &amp; Meera, 2012 for a more recent example). One significant study is that of Sherin (2001) who examined students ability to construct equations. The majority of work suggests that many students in calculus-based physics courses focus their attention exclusively on selecting an equation and substituting in known values—so called “plug and chug” (see Tuminaro 2004). This behaviour—what Redish (1994) has termed the “Dead Leaves” approach to physics equations—has been framed as a major hurdle to students’ ability to see the bigger picture of physics. However, very little work has examined what students think it means to understand a physics equation, the only work we could locate was that of Domert et al, 2007 and Hechter, 2010. Building on these two sources this study examines student understanding of physics equations in three countries. Our research questions are: How do students in three countries say they know that they have understood a physics equation? What different disciplinary aspects of equations can be seen in an analysis of the complete set of answers to research question 1? How might a more holistic view of the understanding of equations be communicated to students? Method This qualitative study uses a research design based on minimum input and maximised output. We asked students in the US (n=83), Australia (n=168) and Sweden (n=105) the same simple question: How do you know when you understand a physics equation? Students wrote free-text answers to this question and these were transcribed and coded. Using qualitative analysis techniques drawn from the phenomenographic tradition, the whole dataset was then treated as a “pool of meaning” (See Airey, 2012 for an example of this type of analysis). Analysis and Results In our analysis we initially looked for differences across countries, however it quickly became apparent that there was a range of answers that repeated across countries. This led us to treat the data as a single set. This first analysis resulted in 15 preliminary categories. These categories were later broken up and reconstructed to form eight themes: Significance, Origin, Describe, Predict, Parts, Relationships, Calculate and Explain. We suggest that each of these eight themes represents a different disciplinary aspect of the expressed student understanding of physics equations. We argue that together the different aspects we find represent a more holistic view of physics equations that we would like all our students to experience. Based on this work we wondered how best to highlight this more holistic view of equations. This prompted us to write a set of questions that reflect the original data with respect to the eight themes: 1      Significance: Why, when, where Do you know why the equation is needed? Do you know where the equation can and cannot be used? (boundary conditions/areas of physics). Do you understand what the equation means for its area of physics? What status does this equation have in physics? (fundamental law, empirical approximation, mathematical conversion, etc.). 2      Origin Do you know the historical roots of the equation? Can you derive the equation? 3      Describe/visualize Can you use the equation to describe a real-life situation? Can you describe an experiment that the equation models? Can you visualize the equation by drawing diagrams, graphs etc. 4      Predict Can you use the equation to predict? 5      Parts Can you describe the physical meaning of each of the components of the equation? How does a change in one component affect other components in the equation? Can you manipulate/rearrange the equation? 6      Other equations Can you relate this equation to other equations you know? Can you construct the equation from other equations that you know? 7      Calculate Can you use the equation to solve a physics problem? Can you use the equation to solve a physics problem in a different context than the one in which it was presented? When you use the equation to calculate an answer do you know: How your answer relates to the original variables? The physical meaning of this answer? Whether your answer is reasonable? 8      Explain Can you explain the equation to someone else? Discussion and conclusion The motivation for this study came from an experience the first author had a number of years ago. In an interview situation, students were asked in passing about whether they understood a certain equation. They replied “yes” and that the equation was “trivial”. However when questioned about what one of the terms in the equation meant and the students did not know! The students clearly meant that the equation was trivial from a mathematical point of view—they knew they could easily use the equation to “calculate stuff” so they said that they understood it. In Redish’s (1994) terms they were using the “Dead Leaves” approach to physics equations. We believe the questions we have generated in this study have the potential to help physics students who think they understand a physics equation to check whether there might be other aspects that they may not yet have considered. Our questions are based on student-generated data. Potentially physics lecturers could experience physics equations in even more complex ways. In continuing work we are therefore asking the same question to a cohort of physics lecturers. We are also trialling the themes and related questions that we generated in various teaching situations. Here we are interested in whether students perceive the questions as helpful in their learning. Acknowledgements Support from the Swedish Research Council, VR project no. 2016-04113, is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(2012), 64–79. Domert, D., Airey, J., Linder, C., &amp; Kung, R. (2007). An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations. NorDiNa,Nordic Studies in Science Education(3), 15-28. Hechter, R. P. (2010). What does it understand the equation' really mean? Physics Education, 45(132). Hegde, B. &amp; Meera, B. N. (2012). How do they solve it? An insight into the learner's approach to the mechanism of physics problem solving. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010109 Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M., &amp; Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource Letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 72(9), 1147-1156. Redish, E. (1994). The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 62(6), 796-803. Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognitive Instruction, 19, 479-541. Tuminaro, J. (2004). A Cognitive framework for analyzing and describing introductory students' use of mathematics in physics. PhD Thesis. University of Maryland, Physics Department.

An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations

Students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning have been shown to affect learning outcomes. Thisstudy explores how university physics students think about what it means to understand physicsequations. The data comes from semi-structured interviews with students from three Swedish univer-sities. The analysis follows a data-based, inductive approach to characterise students’ descriptions ofwhat it means to understand equations in terms of epistemological mindsets (perceived critical attri-butes of a learning, application, or problem-solving situation that are grounded in epistemology). Theresults are given in terms of different components of students’ epistemological mindsets. Relationsbetween individuals and sets of components as well as differences across various stages of students’academic career are then explored. Pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed and tenta-tive suggestions for university physics teaching are made

An exploration of university physics students' epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations

Students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning have been shown to affect learning outcomes. Thisstudy explores how university physics students think about what it means to understand physicsequations. The data comes from semi-structured interviews with students from three Swedish univer-sities. The analysis follows a data-based, inductive approach to characterise students’ descriptions ofwhat it means to understand equations in terms of epistemological mindsets (perceived critical attri-butes of a learning, application, or problem-solving situation that are grounded in epistemology). Theresults are given in terms of different components of students’ epistemological mindsets. Relationsbetween individuals and sets of components as well as differences across various stages of students’academic career are then explored. Pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed and tenta-tive suggestions for university physics teaching are made

An exploration of university physics students’ epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations

Students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning have been shown to affect learning outcomes. This study explores how university physics students think about what it means to understand physics equations. The data comes from semi-structured interviews with students from three Swedish universities. The analysis follows a data-based, inductive approach to characterise students’ descriptions of what it means to understand equations in terms of epistemological mindsets (perceived critical attributes of a learning, application, or problem-solving situation that are grounded in epistemology). The results are given in terms of different components of students’ epistemological mindsets. Relations between individuals and sets of components as well as differences across various stages of students’ academic career are then explored. Pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed and tentative suggestions for university physics teaching are made