Social isolation, loneliness, and inflammation: a multi-cohort investigation in early and mid-adulthood

Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with poor health and increased risk for mortality, and inflammation might explain this link. We used data from the Danish TRIAGE Study of acutely admitted medical patients (N=6,144, mean age 60 years), and from two population-representative birth cohorts: the New Zealand Dunedin Longitudinal Study (N=881, age 45) and the UK Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study (N=1448, age 18), to investigate associations of social isolation with three markers of systemic inflammation: C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and a newer inflammation marker, soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), which is thought to index systemic chronic inflammation. In the TRIAGE Study, socially isolated patients (those living alone) had significantly higher median levels of suPAR (but not CRP or IL-6) compared with patients not living by themselves. Social isolation prospectively measured in childhood was longitudinally associated with higher CRP, IL-6, and suPAR levels in adulthood (at age 45 in the Dunedin Study and age 18 in the E-Risk Study), but only suPAR remained associated after controlling for covariates. Dunedin Study participants who reported loneliness at age 38 or age 45 had elevated suPAR at age 45. In contrast, E-Risk Study participants reporting loneliness at age 18 did not show any elevated markers of inflammation. In conclusion, social isolation in childhood was robustly associated with increased inflammation in adulthood, both in medical patients and in the general population. It was associated in particular with systemic chronic inflammation, evident from the consistently stronger associations with suPAR than other inflammation biomarkers

Internal branding in universities and the lessons learnt from the past: the significance of employee brand support and transformational leadership

The paper reviews the literature on the concept of internal branding and its effects in the service sector in general, as well as in UK universities. In addition, the concept of employee brand support is reviewed, discussing the influence of leadership characteristics on internal branding in universities. Employee brand support is a crucial element to successful internal branding activities. A great concern is that the knowledge of internal branding and employee brand support in higher education institutions is based on knowledge imported from the business sector, and more practices should thus be adapted and implemented. It is found that transformation leadership, despite being little researched in the internal branding context, remains the pivotal element to the successful implementation of internal branding, as transformational leadership provides space for intellectual stimulation and consideration of individuals that are present at universities. Potential future research areas for internal branding studies are identified and discussed

Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design

Background Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. Methods This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. Results The most reported answers to “what matters most (and why)?” were ‘getting better or being in good health’ (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), ‘getting home’ (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and ‘having a diagnosis’ (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Conclusions The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals’ own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care