19 research outputs found
Systematic literature review of the relationship between adolescents' screen time, sleep and mental health
A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions:update of Medical Research Council guidance
Why do those out of work because of sickness or disability have a high mortality risk? Evidence from a Scottish cohort
<b>Background:</b> Existing evidence on the association between being out of work because of sickness or disability and high mortality risk suggests that most of the association cannot be explained by controlling for health, health behaviour or socio-economic position. However, studies are often based on administrative data that lack explanatory factors. Here, we investigate this high mortality risk using detailed information from a cohort study.<p></p>
<b>Methods:</b> Data from the West of Scotland Twenty-07 prospective cohort study were used to follow those (average age 56 years) employed, unemployed and out of work in 1988 to death or end of follow-up in 2011. Using a parametric survival model, mean survival was calculated for each employment group after adjustment for health behaviours, health and socio-economic position.<p></p>
<b>Results:</b> The difference in survival between those sick or disabled (30% survival at end of follow-up), and those unemployed (49%) or employed (61%) was mostly accounted for by adjusting for the higher levels of poor heath at baseline in the former group (49, 46 and 56%, respectively, after adjustment). After controlling for all variables, the difference between those sick or disabled (51%) and those employed (56%) was further attenuated slightly.<p></p>
<b>Conclusion:</b> Our results suggest that the present health of those out of work and sick or disabled should be taken seriously, as their long-term survival prospects are considerably poorer than other employment groups.<p></p>
Why do those out of work because of sickness or disability have a high mortality risk? Evidence from a Scottish cohort
<b>Background:</b> Existing evidence on the association between being out of work because of sickness or disability and high mortality risk suggests that most of the association cannot be explained by controlling for health, health behaviour or socio-economic position. However, studies are often based on administrative data that lack explanatory factors. Here, we investigate this high mortality risk using detailed information from a cohort study.<p></p>
<b>Methods:</b> Data from the West of Scotland Twenty-07 prospective cohort study were used to follow those (average age 56 years) employed, unemployed and out of work in 1988 to death or end of follow-up in 2011. Using a parametric survival model, mean survival was calculated for each employment group after adjustment for health behaviours, health and socio-economic position.<p></p>
<b>Results:</b> The difference in survival between those sick or disabled (30% survival at end of follow-up), and those unemployed (49%) or employed (61%) was mostly accounted for by adjusting for the higher levels of poor heath at baseline in the former group (49, 46 and 56%, respectively, after adjustment). After controlling for all variables, the difference between those sick or disabled (51%) and those employed (56%) was further attenuated slightly.<p></p>
<b>Conclusion:</b> Our results suggest that the present health of those out of work and sick or disabled should be taken seriously, as their long-term survival prospects are considerably poorer than other employment groups.<p></p>
Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.
BACKGROUND: The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. METHODS: There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments. RESULTS: Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. LIMITATIONS: The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development. CONCLUSIONS: This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. FUTURE WORK: We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources. FUNDING: This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514)
Adolescents’ interactive electronic device use, sleep and mental health: a systematic review of prospective studies
Optimal sleep, both in terms of duration and quality, is important for adolescent health. However, young people's sleeping habits have worsened over recent years. Access to and use of interactive electronic devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, portable gaming devices) and social media have become deep-rooted elements of adolescents’ lives and are associated with poor sleep. Additionally, there is evidence of increases in poor mental health and well-being disorders in adolescents; further linked to poor sleep. This review aimed to summarise the longitudinal and experimental evidence of the impact of device use on adolescents’ sleep and subsequent mental health. Nine electronic bibliographical databases were searched for this narrative systematic review in October 2022. Of 5779 identified unique records, 28 studies were selected for inclusion. A total of 26 studies examined the direct link between device use and sleep outcomes, and four reported the indirect link between device use and mental health, with sleep as a mediator. The methodological quality of the studies was generally poor. Results demonstrated that adverse implications of device use (i.e., overuse, problematic use, telepressure, and cyber-victimisation) impacted sleep quality and duration; however, relationships with other types of device use were unclear. A small but consistent body of evidence showed sleep mediates the relationship between device use and mental health and well-being in adolescents. Increasing our understanding of the complexities of device use, sleep, and mental health in adolescents are important contributions to the development of future interventions and guidelines to prevent or increase resilience to cyber-bullying and ensure adequate sleep
Reprint of: 'A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance'
The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.
Complex interventions are commonly used in the health and social care services, public health practice, and other areas of social and economic policy that have consequences for health. Such interventions are delivered and evaluated at different levels, from individual to societal levels. Examples include a new surgical procedure, the redesign of a healthcare programme, and a change in welfare policy. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) published a framework for researchers and research funders on developing and evaluating complex interventions in 2000 and revised guidance in 2006 (Campbell et al., 2000; Craig et al., 2008; Craig et al., 2006). Although these documents continue to be widely used and are now accompanied by a range of more detailed guidance on specific aspects of the research process (Craig et al., 2012; Craig et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2021; O’Cathain et al., 2019), several important conceptual, methodological and theoretical developments have taken place since 2006. These developments have been included in a new framework commissioned by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the MRC (Skivington et al., 2021). The framework aims to help researchers work with other stakeholders to identify the key questions about complex interventions, and to design and conduct research with a diversity of perspectives and appropriate choice of methods
A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance
The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research
A higher effort-based paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health: making the case for a greater emphasis on resistance training
It is well known that physical activity and exercise is associated with a lower risk of a range of morbidities and all-cause mortality. Further, it appears that risk reductions are greater when physical activity and/or exercise is performed at a higher intensity of effort. Why this may be the case is perhaps explained by the accumulating evidence linking physical fitness and performance outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, and muscle mass) also to morbidity and mortality risk. Current guidelines about the performance of moderate/vigorous physical activity using aerobic exercise modes focuses upon the accumulation of a minimum volume of physical activity and/or exercise, and have thus far produced disappointing outcomes. As such there has been increased interest in the use of higher effort physical activity and exercise as being potentially more efficacious. Though there is currently debate as to the effectiveness of public health prescription based around higher effort physical activity and exercise, most discussion around this has focused upon modes considered to be traditionally ‘aerobic’ (e.g. running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc.). A mode customarily performed to a relatively high intensity of effort that we believe has been overlooked is resistance training. Current guidelines do include recommendations to engage in ‘muscle strengthening activities’ though there has been very little emphasis upon these modes in either research or public health effort. As such the purpose of this debate article is to discuss the emerging higher effort paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health and to make a case for why there should be a greater emphasis placed upon resistance training as a mode in this paradigm shift