Examining the Consequences of Direct and Indirect Forms of Negative Intergroup Contact

Advancements in intergroup contact theory have highlighted the importance of recognising positive and negative contact experiences as related but separate dimensions. While the relationship between personal negative contact experiences and prejudice is now well-established, less attention has been devoted to types of contact such as indirect contact, and to outcomes such as future contact engagement. Further, the interpretation of contact experiences as relatively positive or negative has received little attention. Within this thesis nine studies broaden our understanding of the consequences of negative intergroup contact using a variety of methodology. The first two studies demonstrate that a negative encounter with an outgroup member, but not an ingroup member, can reduce intentions to engage in contact with the outgroup in the future. Study 3 further confirmed that the effect of negative contact on outgroup avoidance is not limited to the contacted outgroup and is indirectly associated with reduced intentions to engage with other, secondary outgroups. Studies 4, 5 and 9 found that people who witness a derogatory comment evaluate the person making the comment more negatively, than those people who do not witness a comment, although this is moderated by Social Dominance Orientation. Studies 6, 7, and 8 explored the consequences of intergroup contact encounters when the situation is – to some degree - open to interpretation and demonstrated, contrary to expectations, participants generally were not guided by pre-existing attitudes or contact experiences when evaluating the target’s behaviour or the outgroup as a whole. As a whole, this research suggests that negative contact is damaging not just because it increases prejudice but also because it compromises future engagement with diversity. My thesis provides strong support for the importance of studying the effects of negative contact in a variety of forms and settings; future research programmes are suggested

When contact goes wrong: Negative intergroup contact promotes generalized outgroup avoidance

This paper broadens our understanding of the consequences of negative intergroup contact. Study 1 reports cross-sectional evidence that negative contact with European immigrants in Britain is not only associated with increased prejudice, but also the avoidance of future contact with this group. Studies 2A and 2B provided an experimental replication in a different intergroup context. A negative encounter with an outgroup member, but not an ingroup member, was found to reduce intentions to engage in contact with the outgroup in the future. Study 3 went on to demonstrate that the effect of negative contact on outgroup avoidance is not limited to the contacted outgroup, but is indirectly associated with reduced intentions to engage with other, secondary outgroups—an effect we refer to as avoidance generalization effect. Negative contact was also associated with lower general contact self-efficacy. Together, findings suggest that negative contact is damaging not just because it increases prejudice but also because it compromises future engagement with diversity

The Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ): Conceptual framework and item development

Purpose: To identify the main issues of importance when living with long-term conditions to refine a conceptual framework for informing the item development of a patient-reported outcome measure for long-term conditions. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n=48) were conducted with people living with at least one long-term condition. Participants were recruited through primary care. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by thematic analysis. The analysis served to refine the conceptual framework, based on reviews of the literature and stakeholder consultations, for developing candidate items for a new measure for long-term conditions. Results: Three main organising concepts were identified ‘Impact of long-term conditions’, ‘Experience of services and support’ and ‘Self-care’. The findings helped to refine a conceptual framework leading to the development of 23 items that represent issues of importance in long-term conditions. The 23 candidate items formed the first draft of the measure, currently named the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ). Conclusions: The aim of this study was to refine the conceptual framework and develop items for a patient-reported outcome measure for long-term conditions, including single and multiple morbidities, and physical and mental health conditions. Qualitative interviews identified the key themes for assessing outcomes in long-term conditions and these underpinned the development of the initial draft of the measure. These initial items will undergo cognitive testing to refine the items prior to further validation in a survey

Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ): initial validation survey among primary care patients and social care recipients in England

Objective: The aim of this study was to validate a new generic patient-reported outcome measure, the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ), among a diverse sample of health and social care users in England. Design: Cross-sectional validation survey. Data were collected through postal surveys (February 2016 - January 2017). The sample included a health care cohort of patients recruited through primary care practices, and a social care cohort recruited through local government bodies that provide social care services. Participants: 1,211 participants (24% confirmed social care recipients) took part in the study. Health care participants were recruited on the basis of having one of eleven specified LTCs, and social care participants were recruited on the basis of receiving social care support for at least one LTC. The sample exhibited high multi-morbidity, with 93% reporting two or more LTCs and 43% reporting a mental health condition. Outcome measures: The LTCQ’s construct validity was tested with reference to the EQ-5D (5-level version), the Self-efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale, an Activities of Daily Living scale, and the Bayliss burden of morbidity scale. Results: Low levels of missing data for each item indicate acceptability of the LTCQ across the sample. The LTCQ exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95) across the scale’s 20 items and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95). Associations between the LTCQ and all reference measures were moderate to strong and in the expected directions, indicating convergent construct validity. Conclusions: This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire, which has potential for use in both health and social care settings. The LTCQ could meet a need for holistic outcome measurement that goes beyond symptoms and physical function, complementing existing measures to fully capture what it means to live well with LTCs

Proceedings of Patient Reported Outcome Measure’s (PROMs) Conference Oxford 2017: Advances in Patient Reported Outcomes Research

A33-Effects of Out-of-Pocket (OOP) Payments and Financial Distress on Quality of Life (QoL) of People with Parkinson’s (PwP) and their Carer

Digital Technologies to support social wellbeing of community dwelling older adults in receipt of social care and their carers : Summary of findings from interviews and focus groups with older adults

© 2024 The Author(s). This is an open access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is the third and final briefing summary from a research project exploring digital technologies in adult social care to support social wellbeing for community dwelling older adults (DiTSoW). The research is led by the University of Hertfordshire, representing the East of England Applied Research Collaboration (ARC). It is one of four research projects developed by the National Priorities Programme of Adult Social Care and Social Work, a partnership of nine Applied Research Collaborations (ARCs) across England, funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) and led by the Kent, Surrey and Sussex ARC (ARC KSS)