The acceptability, safety and impact of a play co‐developed with public contributors as a format for disseminating research on a sensitive subject

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) and dissemination of research findings are key parts of the pathway to research impact; however, traditional approaches often fail to engage non‐academic audiences. Creative methods such as co‐developed plays can be effective ways of making the research process and findings more engaging and accessible to the public. Not much is known about how to safely involve patients and the public in the development and delivery of plays disseminating research on sensitive subjects. Members of a PPI group on a study about mindfulness for women with a history of domestic abuse co‐developed and performed a play about their experiences. This study aimed to evaluate the impact, acceptability and safety of a co‐developed play in publicizing PPI and findings from research on domestic abuse. Methods: We conducted a mixed‐methods study with the play team and audience. We collected 20 quantitative and 56 qualitative survey responses from audience members, carried out 4.25 h of direct observations of play performances and interviewed seven audience members and eight play team members. Data were analyzed using the framework method and descriptive statistics, using a ‘following a thread’ approach to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings in themes answering our study aim. Findings: We developed three integrated themes with ten sub‐themes. The ‘Value’ theme summarized the plays' impact on audience understanding, potential mechanisms of impact and its effectiveness in depth over breadth of dissemination. The ‘Re‐traumatization’ theme described potential harms of the play, the risks of re‐traumatizing actors and distressing audiences. The ‘Reducing the risks’ theme summarized ways of reducing these risks of harm. Conclusion: A play co‐developed and performed by study PPI members raised awareness of domestic abuse. However, there were divergent opinions on its value in disseminating messages about PPI in research on sensitive subjects. The value of the play for research dissemination was linked to its ability to emotionally engage the public, and to its accessibility. Implementing strategies to reduce the risk of re‐traumatizing audience members and the project team is recommended. Patient or Public Contribution: Everyone with direct experience of co‐creating and performing the play contributed to this study. This included four public contributors: a community theatre producer, two actors with lived experience of domestic abuse who were members of the study PPI group and one community actor already working with the community theatre. A participatory workshop with PPI contributors was held to refine our research questions and data collection instruments, using a public involvement evaluation tool, The Cube. PPI contributors checked and commented on the draft manuscript

The feasibility of delivering the ADVANCE digital intervention to reduce intimate partner abuse by men receiving substance use treatment:protocol for a non-randomised multi-centre feasibility study and embedded process evaluation

BACKGROUND: Compared to men in the general population, men in substance use treatment are more likely to perpetrate intimate partner abuse (IPA). The ADVANCE group intervention for men in substance use treatment is tailored to address substance use and IPA in an integrated way. In a feasibility trial pre-COVID, men who received the ADVANCE intervention via face-to-face group delivery showed reductions in IPA perpetration. Due to COVID-19, ADVANCE was adapted for remote digital delivery. METHODS/DESIGN: This mixed-methods non-randomised feasibility study, with a nested process evaluation, will explore the feasibility and acceptability of delivering the ADVANCE digital intervention to men in substance use treatment who have perpetrated IPA towards a female partner in the past year. Sixty men will be recruited from seven substance use treatment services in Great Britain. The ADVANCE digital intervention comprises a preparatory one-to-one session with a facilitator to set goals, develop a personal safety plan, and increase motivation and a preparatory online group to prepare men for taking part in the intervention. The core intervention comprises six fortnightly online group sessions and 12 weekly self-directed website sessions to recap and practise skills learned in the online group sessions. Each website session is followed by a one-to-one video/phone coaching session with a facilitator. Men will also receive their usual substance use treatment. Men’s female (ex) partners will be invited to provide outcome data and offered support from integrated safety services (ISS). Outcome measures for men and women will be sought post intervention (approximately 4 months post male baseline interview). Feasibility parameters to be estimated include eligibility, suitability, consent, recruitment, attendance, retention and follow-up rates. In-depth interviews or focus groups will explore the intervention’s acceptability to participants, facilitators and ISS workers. A secondary focus of the study will estimate pre-post-differences in outcome measures covering substance use, IPA, mental health, self-management, health and social care service use, criminal justice contacts and quality of life. DISCUSSION: Findings will inform the design of a multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the ADVANCE digital intervention for reducing IPA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The feasibility study was prospectively registered: ISRCTN66619273

Adapting the ADVANCE group program for digitally-supported delivery to reduce intimate partner violence by men in substance use treatment: a feasibility study

IntroductionCOVID-19 restrictions created barriers to “business as usual” in healthcare but also opened the door to innovation driven by necessity. This manuscript (1) describes how ADVANCE, an in-person group perpetrator program to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) against female (ex)partners by men in substance use treatment, was adapted for digitally-supported delivery (ADVANCE-D), and (2) explores the feasibility and acceptability of delivering ADVANCE-D to men receiving substance use treatment.MethodsFirstly, the person-based approach and mHealth development framework were used to iteratively adapt ADVANCE for digitally-supported delivery including conceptualization, formative research, and pre-testing. Then, a non-randomized feasibility study was conducted to assess male participants’ eligibility, recruitment, and attendance rates and uptake of support offered to their (ex)partners. Exploratory analyses on reductions in IPV perpetration (assessed using the Abusive Behavior Inventory; ABI) and victimization (using the revised ABI; ABI-R) at the end of the program were performed. Longitudinal qualitative interviews with participants, their (ex)partners, and staff provided an understanding of the program’s implementation, acceptability, and outcomes.ResultsThe adapted ADVANCE-D program includes one goal-setting session, seven online groups, 12 self-directed website sessions, and 12 coaching calls. ADVANCE-D includes enhanced risk management and support for (ex)partners. Forty-five participants who had perpetrated IPV in the past 12 months were recruited, forty of whom were offered ADVANCE-D, attending 11.4 (SD 9.1) sessions on average. Twenty-one (ex)partners were recruited, 13 of whom accepted specialist support. Reductions in some IPV perpetration and victimization outcome measures were reported by the 25 participants and 11 (ex)partners interviewed pre and post-program, respectively. Twenty-two participants, 11 (ex)partners, 12 facilitators, and 7 integrated support service workers were interviewed at least once about their experiences of participation. Overall, the program content was well-received. Some participants and facilitators believed digital sessions offered increased accessibility.ConclusionThe digitally-supported delivery of ADVANCE-D was feasible and acceptable. Remote delivery has applicability post-pandemic, providing greater flexibility and access. Given the small sample size and study design, we do not know if reductions in IPV were due to ADVANCE-D, time, participant factors, or chance. More research is needed before conclusions can be made about the efficacy of ADVANCE-D

Hard Evidence Process Evaluation

The Hard Evidence study aimed to explore the impact, acceptability, and safety of a co-developed play in disseminating research on domestic abuse. We conducted a mixed-methods study with the play team and audience: 20 quantitative and 56 qualitative survey responses from audience members, 4.25 hours of direct observations of play performances, qualitative interviews with 7 audience members and 8 play team members. This dataset contains: anonymised transcripts of qualitative semi-structured interviews, demographic characteristics of interviewees, quantitative survey responses, observation notes. Study documentation contains: protocol, participant information sheet, interview topic guides, survey questionnaire

The role of emotion in urban development decision-making:A qualitative exploration of the perspectives of decision-makers

People's feelings about their neighbourhoods are important for health, but they may be undervalued in urban development decision-making. This study explores how decision-makers understand and respond to residents' emotions. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on a secondary dataset consisting of 123 interviews with influential professionals in urban development decision-making. We developed three themes and one subtheme: ‘(mis)understanding residents’ emotions', ‘neglecting the health impact of positive emotions’, ‘avoidance of emotion in community engagement’ and ‘sanitized emotions’. We recommend decision-makers engage directly with residents' emotions during urban development processes to ensure healthier place-making

Corrigendum:“Beyond laughter”: a systematic review to understand how interventions utilise comedy for individuals experiencing mental health problems

In the published article, there was an error. A study which was a mixed methods RCT was only noted as a mixed methods study. This was requested to be changed by the author of the original study. A correction has been made to Section 3. Results, “3.1 Description of studies”, paragraph 1. The incorrect sentence previously stated: “One study used qualitative methodology (Belcher, 2022, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 6), one study was an RCT (Cai et al., 2014), nine studies used a quantitative non-RCT design (Gelkopf et al., 1993, 1994, 2006; Walter et al., 2007; Hirsch et al., 2010; Falkenberg et al., 2011; Konradt et al., 2013; Barker and Winship, 2016; Malhotra et al., 2020) and six studies used mixed methods (Biggs and Stevenson, 2011, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 3; Rudnick et al., 2014; Palmer, 2017, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 4; Tagalidou et al., 2018, 2019; Farrants, 2019, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 5).” The corrected paragraph appears below. Study characteristics are presented in Table 3. Overall, 17 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 13 were published studies (Gelkopf et al., 1993, 1994, 2006; Walter et al., 2007; Hirsch et al., 2010; Falkenberg et al., 2011; Konradt et al., 2013; Cai et al., 2014; Rudnick et al., 2014; Barker and Winship, 2016; Tagalidou et al., 2018, 2019; Malhotra et al., 2020) and four were unpublished, grey literature (Biggs and Stevenson, 2011, Unpublished manuscript2; Palmer, 2017, Unpublished manuscript3; Farrants, 2019, Unpublished manuscript4; Belcher, 2022, Unpublished manuscript5). 15 studies were unique studies and two studies utilised the same intervention and participant group, but utilised different outcome measures (Gelkopf et al., 1993, 1994). One study used qualitative methodology (Belcher, 2022, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 5), one study was an RCT (Cai et al., 2014), nine studies used a quantitative non-RCT design (Gelkopf et al., 1993, 1994, 2006; Walter et al., 2007; Hirsch et al., 2010; Falkenberg et al., 2011; Konradt et al., 2013; Barker and Winship, 2016; Malhotra et al., 2020) and six studies used mixed methods (Biggs and Stevenson, 2011, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 2; Rudnick et al., 2014; Palmer, 2017, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 3; Tagalidou et al., 2018, 2019; Farrants, 2019, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 4). One of these mixed methods studies was a mixed methods RCT (Rudnick et al., 2014). Of the studies which included a qualitative component, one used thematic analysis (Rudnick et al., 2014). It was unclear how other studies analysed qualitative data (Biggs and Stevenson, 2011, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 2; Palmer, 2017, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 3; Tagalidou et al., 2018, 2019; Farrants, 2019, Unpublished manuscript, see footnote 4). The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.</p