PubMed · 8402411
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P Loveridge. 1993-10-01. Scientific integrity.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8402411/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Rapid population growth in China during the 1950s and '60s led to the "late, long, few" policy of the 1970s and a dramatic reduction in the total fertility rate. However, population growth remained too high for the economic targets of Deng Xiao Ping's reforms, so the one child family policy was introduced in 1979 and has remained in force ever since. The strategy is different in urban and rural areas, and implementation varies from place to place depending on local conditions. The policy has been beneficial in terms of curbing population growth, aiding economic growth, and improving the health and welfare of women and children. On the negative side there are concerns about demographic and sex imbalance and the psychological effects for a generation of only children in the cities. The atrocities often associated with the policy, such as female infanticide, occur rarely now. China may relax the policy in the near future, probably allowing two children for everyone.
AIM: To investigate attitudes towards baby feeding and to identify reasons why women stop breast feeding. METHOD: A series of six focus groups were held with thirty eight mothers with babies aged between 3 and 18 months, who had been breast and/or bottle fed. RESULTS: The discussions identified a number of significant themes. Decisions on baby feeding were made before birth. Women felt under considerable pressure to breast feed and felt guilty about bottle feeding. Information available about baby feeding was generally inconsistent, unrealistic and incomplete although all women were well informed about the benefits of breast feeding. Most women found breast feeding more difficult than anticipated and needed more help with common problems. A number of difficulties were identified with bottle feeding. Those women who enjoyed breast feeding were most likely to continue. The best support for breast feeding came from other mothers and supportive partners. Ceasing breast feeding was difficult for some women. CONCLUSION: Exploring mothers' attitudes to breast feeding highlighted the need for non judgemental attitudes to baby feeding and consistent information and support on both breast and bottle feeding. Duration of breast feeding is likely to be improved if problems can be addressed. A larger, more detailed prospective study would more accurately identify problem areas and suggest ways of solving them.
OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship. DESIGN: Interview survey of stratified sample of researchers. SETTING: University medical faculty. SUBJECTS: 66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems. RESULTS: 50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria. Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met. Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation. A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship. Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships. A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship. Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%). CONCLUSION: There seems to be a gap between editors' criteria for authorship and researchers' practice. Lack of awareness of criteria is only a partial explanation. Researchers give more weight than editors to practical research contributions. Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and not be imposed by editors.