Exploratory development of a glass ceramic automobile thermal reactor

This report summarizes the design, fabrication and test results obtained for glass-ceramic (CER-VIT) automotive thermal reactors. Several reactor designs were evaluated using both engine-dynamometer and vehicle road tests. A maximum reactor life of about 330 hours was achieved in engine-dynamometer tests with peak gas temperatures of about 1065 C (1950 F). Reactor failures were mechanically induced. No evidence of chemical degradation was observed. It was concluded that to be useful for longer times, the CER-VIT parts would require a mounting system that was an improvement over those tested in this program. A reactor employing such a system was designed and fabricated

Dark nudges in gambling

‘Nudge’ has come into common usage in behavioral science, the intersection of psychology and economics, for situations where a ‘choice architect’ aligns a system with consumers’ best long - term interests (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). A cafeteria designer might ‘nudge’ her customers by placing the salad bar centrally, while relegating unhealthier foods to a corner. In this editorial I argue that, in gambling, nudging works differently. Gambling’s ‘dark nudges’ are designed to exploit gamblers’ biases, as economic rationality on the part of gambling firms predicts. Gambling’s dark nudges reveal the contradictions of industry - led responsible gambling initiatives, and show how stronger regulation is required to reverse gambling’s spiralling public health costs (Korn & Shaffer, 1999; Livingstone & Adams, 2011; Markham & Young, 2015; Orford, 2005; Orford, 2010

The SHARP study: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the short-term outcomes of housing and neighbourhood renewal

<p><b>Background:</b> The SHARP study was set up to evaluate the short (1 year) and longer-term (2 year) effects on health and wellbeing of providing new social housing to tenants. This paper presents the study background, the design and methods, and the findings at one year.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Data were collected from social tenants who were rehoused into a new, general-purpose socially-rented home developed and let by a Scottish Registered Social Landlord (the "Intervention" group). These data were collected at three points in time: before moving (Wave 1), one year after moving (Wave 2) and two years after moving (Wave 3). Data were collected from a Comparison group using the same methods at Baseline (Wave 1) and after two years of follow-up (Wave 3). Qualitative data were also collected by means of individual interviews. This paper presents the quantitative and qualitative findings at 1 year (after Wave 2).</p> <p><b>Results:</b> 339 Intervention group interviews and 392 Comparison group interviews were completed. One year after moving to a new home there was a significant reduction in the proportion of Intervention group respondents reporting problems with the home, such as damp and noise. There was also a significant increase in neighbourhood satisfaction compared with Baseline (χ2 = 35.51, p < 0.0001). Many aspects of the neighbourhood improved significantly, including antisocial behaviour. In terms of environmental aspects and services the greatest improvements were in the general appearance of the area, the reputation of the area, litter and rubbish, and speeding traffic. However, lack of facilities for children/young people and lack of safe children's play areas remained a concern for tenants.</p> <p><b>Conclusion:</b> This study found that self-reported health changed little in the first year after moving. Nonetheless, the quantitative and qualitative data point to improvements in the quality of housing and of the local environment, as well as in tenant satisfaction and other related outcomes. Further analyses will explore whether these effects are sustained, and whether differences in health outcomes emerge at 2 years compared with the Comparison group.</p&gt

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) for the treatment of psychosis: a systematic review

Background: Psychosis is a public health concern. There is increasing evidence suggesting trauma can play a pivotal role in the development and maintenance of psychosis. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is an effective treatment for trauma and could be a vital addition to the treatment of psychosis. Objective: To explore the evidence for EMDR as a treatment for psychosis, focussing on the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of this intervention for this population. Methods: Four databases (Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE PsychINFO), and the Francine Shapiro Library were systematically searched, along with grey literature and reference lists of relevant papers. No date limits were applied as this is an area of emerging evidence. Studies were screened for eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The included studies were quality assessed and data was extracted from the individual studies, and synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria (1 RCT, 2 Pilot studies, 2 Case series and 1 Case report). Across the studies EMDR was associated with reductions in delusional and negative symptoms, mental health service and medication use. Evidence for reductions in auditory hallucinations and paranoid thinking was mixed. No adverse events were reported, although initial increases in psychotic symptoms were observed in two studies. Average dropout rates across the studies were comparable to other trauma-focused treatments for PTSD. The acceptability of EMDR was not adequately measured or reported. Conclusion: EMDR appears a safe and feasible intervention for people with psychosis. The evidence is currently insufficient to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of the intervention for this population. Larger confirmative trials are required to form more robust conclusions

Maximising the availability and use of high quality evidence for policymaking:Collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews

Abstract A number of barriers have been identified to getting evidence into policy. In particular, a lack of policy relevance and lack of timeliness have been identified as causing tension between researchers and policy makers. Rapid reviews are used increasingly as an approach to address timeliness, however, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective review methods and they do not necessarily address the need of policy makers. In the course of our work with the Scottish Government’s Review of maternity and neonatal services we developed a new approach to evidence synthesis, which this paper will describe. We developed a standardised approach to produce collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy making. This approach aimed to ensure the reviews were policy relevant, high quality and up-to-date, and which were presented in a consistent, transparent, and easy to access format. The approach involved the following stages: 1) establishing a review team with expertise both in the topic and in systematic reviewing, 2) clarifying the review questions with policy makers and subject experts (i.e., health professionals, service user representatives, researchers) who acted as review sponsors, 3) developing review protocols to systematically identify quantitative and qualitative review-level evidence on effectiveness, sustainability and acceptability; if review level evidence was not available, primary studies were sought, 4) agreeing a framework to structure the analysis of the reviews around a consistent set of key concepts and outcomes; in this case a published framework for maternal and newborn care was used, 5) developing an iterative process between policy makers, reviewers and review sponsors, 6) rapid searches and retrieval of literature, 7) analysis of identified literature which was mapped to the framework and included review sponsor input, 8) production of recommendations mapped to the agreed framework and presented as ‘summary topsheets’ in a consistent and easy to read format. Our approach has drawn on different components of pre-existing rapid review methodology to provide a rigorous and pragmatic approach to rapid evidence synthesis. Additionally, the use of a framework to map the evidence helped structure the review questions, expedited the analysis and provided a consistent template for recommendations, which took into account the policy context. We therefore propose that our approach (described in this paper) can be described as producing collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy makers

Who knows best? A Q methodology study to explore perspectives of professional stakeholders and community participants on health in low-income communities

Abstract Background Health inequalities in the UK have proved to be stubborn, and health gaps between best and worst-off are widening. While there is growing understanding of how the main causes of poor health are perceived among different stakeholders, similar insight is lacking regarding what solutions should be prioritised. Furthermore, we do not know the relationship between perceived causes and solutions to health inequalities, whether there is agreement between professional stakeholders and people living in low-income communities or agreement within these groups. Methods Q methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives (‘subjectivities’) that exist on i) why health is worse in low-income communities (‘Causes’) and ii) the ways that health could be improved in these same communities (‘Solutions’). Purposively selected individuals (n = 53) from low-income communities (n = 25) and professional stakeholder groups (n = 28) ranked ordered sets of statements – 34 ‘Causes’ and 39 ‘Solutions’ – onto quasi-normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view. ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ were analysed independently, before examining correlations between perspectives on causes and perspectives on solutions. Results Analysis produced three factor solutions for both the ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’. Broadly summarised these accounts for ‘Causes’ are: i) ‘Unfair Society’, ii) ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’, iii) ‘Intergenerational hardships’ and for ‘Solutions’: i) ‘Empower communities’, ii) ‘Paternalism’, iii) ‘Redistribution’. No professionals defined (i.e. had a significant association with one factor only) the ‘Causes’ factor ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’ and the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Paternalism’. No community participants defined the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Redistribution’. The direction of correlations between the two sets of factor solutions – ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ – appear to be intuitive, given the accounts identified. Conclusions Despite the plurality of views there was broad agreement across accounts about issues relating to money. This is important as it points a way forward for tackling health inequalities, highlighting areas for policy and future research to focus on

Systematic review of the effects of schools and school environment interventions on health: evidence mapping and synthesis

Background: In contrast to curriculum-based health education interventions in schools, the school environment approach promotes health by modifying schools’ physical/social environment. This systematic review reports on the health effects of the school environment and processes by which these might occur. It includes theories, intervention outcome and process evaluations, quantitative studies and qualitative studies. Research questions Research question (RQ)1: What theories are used to inform school environment interventions or explain school-level health influences? What testable hypotheses are suggested? RQ2: What are the effects on student health/inequalities of school environment interventions addressing organisation/management; teaching/pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? What are the costs? RQ3: How feasible/acceptable and context dependent are such interventions? RQ4: What are the effects on student health/inequalities of school-level measures of organisation/management; teaching/pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? RQ5: Through what processes might such influences occur? Data sources A total of 16 databases were searched between 30 July 2010 and 23 September 2010 to identify relevant studies, including the British Educational Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Health Management Information Consortium, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. In addition, references of included studies were checked and authors contacted. Review methods In stage 1, we mapped references concerning how the school environment affects health and consulted stakeholders to identify stage 2 priorities. In stage 2, we undertook five reviews corresponding to our RQs. Results Stage 1: A total of 82,775 references were retrieved and 1144 were descriptively mapped. Stage 2: A total of 24 theories were identified (RQ1). The human functioning and school organisation, social capital and social development theories were judged most useful. Ten outcome evaluations were included (RQ2). Four US randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one UK quasi-experimental study examined interventions building school community/relationships. Studies reported benefits for some, but not all outcomes (e.g. aggression, conflict resolution, emotional health). Two US RCTs assessed interventions empowering students to contribute to modifying food/physical activity environments, reporting benefits for physical activity but not for diet. Three UK quasi-experimental evaluations examined playground improvements, reporting mixed findings, with benefits being greater for younger children and longer break times. Six process evaluations (RQ3) reported positively. One study suggested that implementation was facilitated when this built on existing ethos and when senior staff were supportive. We reviewed 42 multilevel studies, confining narrative synthesis to 10 that appropriately adjusted for confounders. Four UK/US reports suggested that schools with higher value-added attainment/attendance had lower rates of substance use and fighting. Three reports from different countries examined school policies on smoking/alcohol, with mixed results. One US study found that schools with more unobservable/unsupervised places reported increased substance use. Another US study reported that school size, age structure and staffing ratio did not correlate with student drinking. Twenty-one qualitative reports from different countries (RQ5) suggested that disengagement, lack of safety and lack of participation in decisions may predispose students to engage in health risks. Limitations We found no evidence regarding health inequalities or cost, and could not undertake meta-analysis. Conclusions There is non-definitive evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of school environment interventions involving community/relationship building, empowering student participation in modifying schools’ food/physical activity environments, and playground improvements. Multilevel studies suggest that schools that add value educationally may promote student health. Qualitative studies suggest pathways underlying these effects. This evidence lends broad support to theories of social development, social capital and human functioning and school organisation. Further trials to examine the effects of school environment modifications on student health are recommended

Researching Complex Interventions in Health: The State of the Art : Exeter, UK. 14-15 October 2015.

Erratum to this paper available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/23087

"We're not short of people telling us what the problems are. We're short of people telling us what to do": An appraisal of public policy and mental health

Background: There is sustained interest in public health circles in assessing the effects of policies on health and health inequalities. We report on the theory, methods and findings of a project which involved an appraisal of current Scottish policy with respect to its potential impacts on mental health and wellbeing. Methods: We developed a method of assessing the degree of alignment between Government policies and the 'evidence base', involving: reviewing theoretical frameworks; analysis of policy documents, and nineteen in-depth interviews with policymakers which explored influences on, and barriers to cross-cutting policymaking and the use of research evidence in decisionmaking. Results: Most policy documents did not refer to mental health; however most referred indirectly to the determinants of mental health and well-being. Unsurprisingly research evidence was rarely cited; this was more common in health policy documents. The interviews highlighted the barriers to intersectoral policy making, and pointed to the relative value of qualitative and quantitative research, as well as to the imbalance of evidence between "what is known" and "what is to be done". Conclusion: Healthy public policy depends on effective intersectoral working between government departments, along with better use of research evidence to identify policy impacts. This study identified barriers to both these. We also demonstrated an approach to rapidly appraising the mental health effects of mainly non-health sector policies, drawing on theoretical understandings of mental health and its determinants, research evidence and policy documents. In the case of the social determinants of health, we conclude that an evidence-based approach to policymaking and to policy appraisal requires drawing strongly upon existing theoretical frameworks, as well as upon research evidence, but that there are significant practical barriers and disincentives

Psychological determinants of whole-body endurance performance

Background: No literature reviews have systematically identified and evaluated research on the psychological determinants of endurance performance, and sport psychology performance-enhancement guidelines for endurance sports are not founded on a systematic appraisal of endurance-specific research. Objective: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify practical psychological interventions that improve endurance performance and to identify additional psychological factors that affect endurance performance. Additional objectives were to evaluate the research practices of included studies, to suggest theoretical and applied implications, and to guide future research. Methods: Electronic databases, forward-citation searches, and manual searches of reference lists were used to locate relevant studies. Peer-reviewed studies were included when they chose an experimental or quasi-experimental research design, a psychological manipulation, endurance performance as the dependent variable, and athletes or physically-active, healthy adults as participants. Results: Consistent support was found for using imagery, self-talk, and goal setting to improve endurance performance, but it is unclear whether learning multiple psychological skills is more beneficial than learning one psychological skill. The results also demonstrated that mental fatigue undermines endurance performance, and verbal encouragement and head-to-head competition can have a beneficial effect. Interventions that influenced perception of effort consistently affected endurance performance. Conclusions: Psychological skills training could benefit an endurance athlete. Researchers are encouraged to compare different practical psychological interventions, to examine the effects of these interventions for athletes in competition, and to include a placebo control condition or an alternative control treatment. Researchers are also encouraged to explore additional psychological factors that could have a negative effect on endurance performance. Future research should include psychological mediating variables and moderating variables. Implications for theoretical explanations of endurance performance and evidence-based practice are described