Slideshow activism on Instagram: Constructing the political activist subject

An emerging activist tactic on visual-based social media such as Instagram, slideshow activism adapts the production and consumption of political information to the logic of the platform. In so doing, slideshow activism provides followers with an ideal subject position for civic engagement. By examining a popular slideshow activist Instagram account, we outline the features of this activist tactic and its mobilizing appeal. The qualitative content analysis of a sample of 50 posts reveals that slideshow activism addresses its followers as individuals who are actively staying well-informed on the social justice dimension of a wide range of political issues and are constantly engaged in self-transformation in order to become better citizens. This ideal, we argue, entrenches social justice as a core political value for civic engagement, and recommends a mix of argumentation and personal transformation as the everyday means for individuals to bring about political change. We further explore the consequences of this subject position for citizen engagement with politics

A qualitative evidence synthesis on the management of male obesity.

Objectives: To investigate what weight management interventions work for men, with which men, and under what circumstances. Design: Realist synthesis of qualitative studies. Data sources: Sensitive searches of 11 electronic databases from 1990 to 2012 supplemented by grey literature searches. Study selection: Studies published between 1990 and 2012 reporting qualitative research with obese men, or obese men in contrast to obese women and lifestyle or drug weight management were included. The studies included men aged 16 years or over, with no upper age limit, with a mean or median body mass index of 30 kg/m2 in all settings. Results: 22 studies were identified, including 5 qualitative studies linked to randomised controlled trials of weight maintenance interventions and 8 qualitative studies linked to non-randomised intervention studies, and 9 relevant UK-based qualitative studies not linked to any intervention. Health concerns and the perception that certain programmes had ‘worked’ for other men were the key factors that motivated men to engage with weight management programmes. Barriers to engagement and adherence with programmes included: men not problematising their weight until labelled ‘obese’; a lack of support for new food choices by friends and family, and reluctance to undertake extreme dieting. Retaining some autonomy over what is eaten; flexibility about treats and alcohol, and a focus on physical activity were attractive features of programmes. Group interventions, humour and social support facilitated attendance and adherence. Men were motivated to attend programmes in settings that were convenient, non-threatening and congruent with their masculine identities, but men were seldom involved in programme design. Conclusions: Men's perspectives and preferences within the wider context of family, work and pleasure should be sought when designing weight management services. Qualitative research is needed with men to inform all aspects of intervention design, including the setting, optimal recruitment processes and strategies to minimise attrition

Are men difficult to find? Identifying male-specific studies in MEDLINE and Embase.

Systematic reviews often investigate the effectiveness of interventions for one sex. However, identifying interventions with data presented according to the sex of study participants can be challenging due to suboptimal indexing in bibliographic databases and poor reporting in titles and abstracts. The purposes of this study were to develop a highly sensitive search filter to identify literature relevant to men's health and to assess the performance of a range of sex-specific search terms used individually and in various combinations

Sex can affect participation, engagement, and adherence in trials.

No abstract available

Mesh inlay, mesh kit or native tissue repair for women having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery: randomised controlled trial (PROSPECT)

Funding The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (Project Number 07/60/18). The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the women who participated in the PROSPECT study. We also thank Margaret MacNeil for her secretarial support and data management; Dawn McRae and Lynda Constable for their trial management support; the programming team in CHaRT, led by Gladys McPherson; members of the Project Management Group for their ongoing advice and support of the study; and the staff at the recruitment sites who facilitated the recruitment, treatment and follow up of study participants.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia : a systematic review and economic evaluation

PMID: 22469073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free full textPeer reviewedPublisher PD

The Value of Preventative Dental Care:A Discrete-Choice Experiment

Acknowledgments We thank all of the respondents to our survey who took the time to share their opinions and preferences with us, as well as all members of the IQuaD study team who provided input, advice, and comments on draft versions of the survey. Open Access via the Jisc Sage Open Access Agreement Funder - national institute for health research 10.13039/501100000272 09/01/45 Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project number: 09/01/45). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health or the funders that provide institutional support for the authors of this report. The Health Economics Research Unit and the Health Services Research Unit are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care DirectoratesPeer reviewedPublisher PD