Organizational Strategies Used in the Development of Health Promotion Programs

With the increasing cost of health care, more and more corporations, government agencies, and other organizations are initiating health promotion programs. It is imperative that these programs be well planned, properly implemented, and carefully evaluated if they are to be successful. Although either a management initiated program or an employee initiated program can be effective, the best approach is a joint management, employee initiated program. In such a joint approach the advantages of both the management initiated and employee initiated approaches are maximized while disadvantages of the two approaches are minimized. If at all possible, a trained health promotion expert should be hired to manage this program regardless of where the program is initiated

Senior And Junior Faculty Perspectives On A Tenure Process In Health Promotion And Education

This paper reviews the concept of tenure and its importance in health education. It also illustrates the experiences and perspectives of a senior level tenured professor and a junior level non-tenured assistant professor, from a health education program at a Research I university. The goals of this paper include providing future or beginning junior faculty with: 1) perspectives on tenure and its importance within the health promotion profession, 2) helpful hints for obtaining tenure from the view of a senior tenured faculty member, 3) ways that senior faculty members can support junior faculty in obtaining tenure, and 4) key issues identified by a junior faculty member currently on the tenure track

Stress Status and Related Characteristics among Urban Residents: A Six-Province Capital Cities Study in China

Objectives To estimate current prevalence levels of stress, and to identify related characteristics among urban residents in China. Design A cross-sectional, multilevel study. Selected through multi-stage quota-sampling, survey participants were 4,735 urban residents aged 15 years and older who resided in one of six selected Chinese capital cities. Data were collected on stress levels and sociodemographic characteristics. Stress was assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale, Chinese version (CPSS). A multilevel variance component model was employed to analyze associations between sociodemographic variables and stress. Results The mean stress score for urban residents was 22.34 (SD: 3.22), and 36.8% of those surveyed (95% CI: 33.5–40.2%) were severely stressed (\u3e25). Multilevel regression analysis indicated that residents aged 55 years and older were less stressed than residents under age 25. The most educated and higher income earners had lower stress levels than the least educated and poorest. High levels of stress were apparent among all other occupational groups, relative to managers and clerks, except retirees and operational workers. Residents in the north of China exhibited higher stress levels than counterparts in the south. Conclusions This study suggests that higher stress levels are positively associated with social class in China. Our findings could inform health policy, guide prevention strategies, and justify the design and implementation of targeted interventions

Stress Status and Related Characteristics among Urban Residents: A Six-Province Capital Cities Study in China

Objectives: To estimate current prevalence levels of stress, and to identify related characteristics among urban residents in China. Design: A cross-sectional, multilevel study. Selected through multi-stage quota-sampling, survey participants were 4,735 urban residents aged 15 years and older who resided in one of six selected Chinese capital cities. Data were collected on stress levels and sociodemographic characteristics. Stress was assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale, Chinese version (CPSS). A multilevel variance component model was employed to analyze associations between sociodemographic variables and stress. Results: The mean stress score for urban residents was 22.34 (SD: 3.22), and 36.8 % of those surveyed (95 % CI: 33.5–40.2%) were severely stressed (.25). Multilevel regression analysis indicated that residents aged 55 years and older were less stressed than residents under age 25. The most educated and higher income earners had lower stress levels than the least educated and poorest. High levels of stress were apparent among all other occupational groups, relative to managers and clerks, except retirees and operational workers. Residents in the north of China exhibited higher stress levels than counterparts in the south. Conclusions: This study suggests that higher stress levels are positively associated with social class in China. Our finding

Comparative Stress Levels among Residents in Three Chinese Provincial Capitals, 2001 and 2008

Objectives To compare stress levels among residents in large Chinese cities between 2001 and 2008. Methods Survey data were collected in three mainland Chinese capital cities in two waves, in 2001 and 2008, respectively. Participants were recruited through a multi-stage stratified sampling process. Stress was assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale, Chinese version (CPSS). Descriptive methods were used to estimate mean stress levels and associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimates were adjusted by post-stratification weights. Results Indicating stable stress levels, respective adjusted mean stress scores for the combined samples of study participants were 23.90 (95%CI: 23.68–24.12) in 2001 and 23.69 (95%CI: 23.38–24.01) in 2008. A lower stress level in 2008 than in 2001 manifested among residents who were under 25 years of age; female; with a college or higher level education; divorced, widowed, or separated; members of the managerial and clerical group; students or army personnel; or with an annual income of at least 30,000 RMB. Conclusion The overall stress level did not change among the combined sample of residents in the three Chinese study cities between 2001 and 2008. However, levels remained high and varied across social strata, and may have reflected a national trend among urban residents. Findings indicate a need for a new health policy, and call for the design and implementation of evidence-based interventions that target the highest-risk groups

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016