Collaboration for impact: co-creating a workforce development toolkit using an arts-based approach

Introduction: The identification, communication and management of health risk is a core task of Community Health Workers who operate at the boundaries of community and primary care, often through not-for-profit community interest companies. However, there are few opportunities or resources for workforce development. Publicly funded researchers have an obligation to be useful to the public and furthermore, university funding is increasingly contingent on demonstrating the social impact of academic research. Collaborative work with participants and other stakeholders can have reciprocal benefits to all but may be daunting to some researchers, unused to such approaches. Methods: This case study is an account of the co-creation of a (freely accessible) workforce development toolkit, as part of a collaboration between academics, community interest companies, patients and services users and arts practitioners. Results: Our collaborative group produced three short films, fictionalising encounters between Community Health Workers and their clients. These were used within a series of five discussion-led workshops with facilitator guidance to explore issues generated by the films. Two collaborating community-based, not-for-profit organisations piloted the toolkit before its launch. Conclusion: We aim to encourage other academics to maximise the impact of their own research through collaborative projects with those outside of academia, including research participants and to consider the potential value of arts-based approaches to explore and facilitate reflection on complex tasks and tensions that make up daily work practices. Whilst publication of findings from such projects may be commonplace, accounts of the process are unusual. This detailed account highlights some of the benefits and challenges involved

Longitudinal Outcomes of Gender Identity in Children (LOGIC): protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of children referred to the UK gender identity development service.

INTRODUCTION: Gender identity development services (GIDS) worldwide have seen a significant increase in referrals in recent years. Many of these referrals consist of children and young people (CYP) who experience gender-related distress. This study aims to improve understanding of outcomes of CYP referred to the UK GIDS, specifically regarding gender identity, mental health, physical health and quality of life. The impact of factors such as co-occurring autism and early social transition on outcomes over time will be explored. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective cohort study of CYP aged 3-14 years when referred to the UK GIDS. Eligible participants will be ≤14 years at the time their referral was accepted and will be on the waitlist for the service when baseline measures are completed. Children aged under 12 years will complete the measures in an interview format with a researcher, while young people aged 12 years and over and their parents/caregivers will complete online or paper-based questionnaires. Participants will complete follow-up measures 12 months and 24 months later. The final sample size is expected to be approximately 500. Logistic regression models will be used to explore associations between prespecified explanatory variables and gender dysphoria. Appropriate regression models will also be used to investigate explanatory variables for other outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on birth-assigned gender, age at referral and co-occurring autistic traits will be explored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Health Research Authority and London - Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/LO/0857). The study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at both conferences and stakeholder events. Findings will be used to inform clinical practice

Refined exposure assessment of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) from its use as a food additive

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the refined exposure assessment of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) when used as a food additive. Polyethylene glycols were evaluated by several international bodies and the AFC Panel previously adopted scientific opinions on the safety polyethylene glycol (E 1521). In 2006, the Panel concluded that based on all the data, consumption of PEG through use as plasticisers in film‐coating formulations for food supplement tablets and/or capsules at the intended use level are not of safety concern. In 2007, in another opinion of the AFC Panel related to d‐alpha‐tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS) in use for food for particular nutritional purposes, the Panel noted that TPGS intakes would correspond to intake to PEG 1000 at levels equivalent to 3.3–8.5 mg/kg body wieght (bw) per day which are within the range of group acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) of the SCF (1997) and JECFA (1980). This assessment could only take into account the use of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) in food supplements and thus the food supplements consumers only scenario was performed. It resulted in exposure estimates of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) up to 3.5 mg/kg bw per day at the mean and up to 6.1 mg/kg bw per day at the high level. The current exposure assessment is based on the methodology used in the re‐evaluation of food additives together with reported use levels received following a call for data in 2017. Considering the uncertainties of the exposure assessment, these estimates very likely overestimated the real exposure to polyethylene glycol (E 1521). The Panel also noted that the highest calculated exposure estimate falls within the range of the group ADI previously established by SCF (5 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 300–4000) and of the one set by JECFA (10 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 200–10000)

Re-evaluation of acetic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, mono- and diacetyltartaric acid, mixed acetic and tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472a-f) as food additives

Publisher PD

Re-evaluation of metatartaric acid (E 353) as a food additive

Acknowledgements: The FAF Panel wishes to thank Claude Lambre and Esraa Elewa for the support provided to this scientific output. The FAF Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.Publisher PD

Re-evaluation of stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive

Acknowledgements: The FAF Panel wishes to thank Claude Lambre for the support provided to this scientific output. The FAF Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.Publisher PD

Re-evaluation of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives

Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank Claude Lambre, Jan Mast and Galvin Eyong for the support provided to this scientific output. The FAF Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.Publisher PD

Re-evaluation of Quillaia extract (E 999) as a food additive and safety of the proposed extension of use

Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thanks the members of the former Working Group Application of the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources for the preparatory work on this scientific output and Fabiola Pizzo for the support provided to this scientific output. The FAF Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.Publisher PD

Re-evaluation of propane-1,2-diol esters of fatty acids (E 477) as a food additive

Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank the Working Group on the re-evaluation of food additives other than gums and colours of the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) for the preparatory work on this scientific output, in particular Pasquale Mosesso and Rudolf Antonius Woutersen. The FAF Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.Publisher PD