Lost in translation?

The vast majority of research in the psychology of reproduction and infancy ultimately aims to improve the health and well‐being of individuals in meaningful ways. Despite diversity in topics of study, research in our field can support improved planning of health and social services and the development and implementation of policy, practice guidelines and programmes to enhance the experiences of women, men and children. Research published in the current issue demonstrates this practical utility.

In this issue of the journal Chin, Hall and Daiches’ meta‐synthesis of fathers’ experiences of the transition to parenthood and Bradley and Slade’s review of fathers’ mental health problems following the birth of a child legitimate men’s role in the maternity care system and provide a robust basis for the development of health policies and programmes that can address their needs. Together, their findings highlight the importance of improved tailoring of antenatal education (practical accessibility and content relevance) for fathers, and opportunities for postnatal reflection, debriefing, and support.

Research by Thompson and Lee and by Hadley and Hanley examine the preferences, attitudes and emotions of both young childless men in early adulthood in Australia and involuntarily childless men from the UK. Thompson and Lee report that most young men anticipate considerable tensions between the ‘involved father’ role they espouse and their felt obligations to provide financially for the family. These findings support the need for social policies that can better support men in the fatherhood role. Hadley and Hanley found that involuntarily childless men experience a sense of loss, depression and isolation and that the experience of childlessness can impact on the expression of masculinity in unique ways. Their research demonstrates the importance of recognising socialised gender roles and masculine responses to childlessness in therapeutic approaches to address the impact of involuntary childlessness for men, as well as the need for gender‐inclusive social policy and health service responses to infertility.

Giallo, Wade, Cooklin and Rose examine concepts of fatigue and depression in postpartum mothers, and their findings suggest a need for more accurate clinical assessment and diagnosis of fatigue and depression as separate constructs. Their research has direct implications for preventing unnecessary pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment in favour of more appropriate and effective management of postpartum fatigue.

Côté‐Arsenault and Donato and Dykes, Slade and Haywood document the perspectives of pregnant women with previous experience of perinatal loss and menopausal women with previous experience of termination of pregnancy. Together, their findings provide valuable insight into women’s management of these experiences, with key implications for the improvement of supportive health service responses. Côté‐Arsenault and Donato suggest that recognition by antenatal care providers that anxiety and ‘emotional cushioning’ are common among pregnant women with previous perinatal loss would improve quality of care and increase women’s perceived access to pregnancy care that can meet their needs. Dykes, Slade and Haywood’s findings highlight the need for lifelong opportunities for post‐termination counselling, particularly during menopause when women may be more vulnerable to the emotional impact of having experienced a termination of pregnancy.

The recommendations for improved practice that arise from our work are both clear and evidence‐based. Unfortunately, as plagues many fields, the volume of research conducted in reproductive and infant psychology has had only limited observable impact on policy and practice so far. For example, despite evidence that women want to be actively involved in decision‐making about their maternity care and report greater satisfaction when afforded this opportunity (Brown & Lumley, 1998) and available tools and strategies for effectively facilitating shared decision‐making between women and their care providers (e.g. Nassar, Roberts, Raynes‐Greenow, & Barratt, 2007), women continue to report low levels of involvement in many aspects of decision‐making during pregnancy, labour and birth (Thompson, Miller, Wojcieszek, Armanasco, & Porter, 2010). Our field has also documented insights into women’s experience of miscarriage and perceived gaps in their care (Rowlands & Lee, 2010; Simmons, Singh, Maconochie, Doyle, & Green, 2006) and developed effective programs to support women during this time (Séjourné, Callahan, & Chabrol, 2010), yet there is a persistent lack of routine support for early reproductive loss.

The type of research that we typically focus on forms one impediment to the translation of our work into observable change. A review of 2010 issues of this journal suggests that, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Bohr, Halpert, Chan, Lishak, & Brightling, 2010; Gaston & Gammage, 2010; Séjourné et al., 2010), much of our research focuses on identifying problems and their incidence, examining their correlates and making assertions about potential solutions. This preliminary research is a critical stage of the process, but we often stop short of extending our line of enquiry to the implementation and evaluation of our proposed solutions. Perhaps we assume that responsibility for the next step lies elsewhere, or we hope that it does. Documenting a problem is typically easier, quicker and cheaper than attempting to solve it. Studies that implement and evaluate interventions tend to take longer, require greater collaboration across disciplines and sectors and typically cost a lot more money. Short‐term funding cycles do not facilitate rigorous implementation research and research institutions often lack the infrastructure to support studies of this kind. Irrespective, change is unlikely to result from suggestions penned in the discussion section of a journal article, regardless of how well‐considered or innovative they are.

When we do intervention research, we typically fail to effectively disseminate our research findings in ways that can engender change in the real world. Publishing our findings in applied journals (such as this one) that attract multidisciplinary and multisector audiences is a valuable part of the diffusion process (Oldenburg, Sallis, Ffrench, & Owen, 1999), but it is naïve to think that policy‐makers and practitioners will meet us here. It’s important to ensure that those planning policies, providing health care, and working with the populations that we study can access and use our intervention research to inform their decision‐making (Pollack, Samuels, Frattaroli, & Gielen, 2010).

Researchers are well positioned to embrace a role in the knowledge translation process and there is an emerging body of literature to support such efforts (Pollack et al., 2010). We have ample documentation of the barriers that policy‐makers and practitioners encounter in using academic publications for decision‐making, including limited access and insufficient content or research expertise to understand complex findings in the way we report them (Colby, Quinn, Williams, Bilheimer, & Goodell, 2008). We can facilitate uptake of our research findings via the development of accessible, lay summaries of research findings and their dissemination to practitioners, policy‐makers and the public through novel channels (e.g. contemporary communication technologies, the mass media). Engaging external agencies and individuals to act as intermediaries in the translation process is another key strategy (Colby et al., 2008).

The challenges of undertaking knowledge translation cannot be ignored. Building resources for research dissemination into limited research budgets is difficult. Piling additional responsibilities onto the already‐crowded plates of academics and researchers, who typically lack formal training in knowledge translation, is problematic. However, there is increasing emphasis by funding agencies on translational research, growing recognition within the university sector on the importance of community engagement and proximal application of our research findings, and emerging subdisciplines that specialise in knowledge translation. This context offers as yet unrealised opportunities for expanding the contribution of critical research in reproductive and infant psychology. We have much to offer the agenda of applied research translation, and much to gain – not least the satisfaction of seeing our rigorous research efforts utilised in meaningful ways.