We Are All in This Together: The Role of Individuals’ Social Identities in Problematic Engagement with Video Games and the Internet

Individuals’ engagement with videogames and the internet features both social and potentially pathological aspects. In this research, we draw on the social identity approach and present a novel framework to understand the linkage between these two aspects. In three samples (Nstudy1 = 304, Nstudy2 = 160 and Nstudy3 = 782) of young Chinese people from two age groups (approximately 20 and 16 years old), we test the associations between relevant social identities and problematic engagement with videogames and the internet. Across studies, we demonstrate that individuals’ identification as ‘gamers’ or ‘frequent internet users’ predicts problematic engagement with videogames and the internet through stronger perceived social support from such groups. Moreover, we demonstrate that individuals’ identification as ‘students’ (Studies 2-3) is negatively associated with problematic engagement via social support from other students. Finally, in Study 3, we examine the articulation between social support from these three groups and subjective sense of loneliness. Findings indicate that, whereas perceived support from students is negatively associated with loneliness, the association between perceived support from gamers and internet users and loneliness is weaker and positive. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are discussed. Taken together, the studies highlight the importance of considering the social context of individuals’ problematic engagement with technologies, and the role of different group memberships

CMS physics technical design report : Addendum on high density QCD with heavy ions

Peer reviewe

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings. METHOD: The following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument. RESULTS: Fifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability. CONCLUSION: Investigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348