Suchergebnisse

Over the past few decades, the use of the arts in health has blossomed. What, for many centuries, was seen as a fringe activity is now being recognised as a field that has enormous potential for impacting positively on both individuals and societies. However, despite this surge in interest and activity, there is still limited support available for people working in the field. Although the number of practical training courses for artists is growing and more universities are establishing research groups, most training activity occurs in either practice or research; there are relatively few opportunities to gain parallel experience in both. Arts in Health: Designing and Researching Interventions provides a complete overview of how to go about undertaking research and practice in the field of arts in health. It starts by exploring the context for arts in health interventions, including the history of the use of arts in health and the theoretical and political developments that have laid the foundations for its flourishing. It also considers what 'arts in health' encompasses and the range of disciplines involved. Part II examines how to design an arts in health intervention, develop partnerships and find funding and considers the sensitivities around working in healthcare. Part III considers the value of research for the field of arts in health and how to design and undertake a research project. Finally, part IV provides a fact file of arts in health research and practice, showing how the arts can be applied and the benefits they can bring across a range of medical disciplines. The book will be valuable for researchers, practitioners, healthcare professionals and those interested in learning more about the field.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether racial/ethnic discrimination predicts future COVID-19 vaccine refusal, and whether this association is explained by trust in government and the health system. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study of racial/ethnic discrimination occurring since the start of the first lockdown (measured in July 2020) and later COVID-19 vaccine status. SETTING: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 633 adults belonging to ethnic minority groups who took part in the UCL COVID-19 Social Study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 vaccine refusal (vs. accepted/waiting/had at least one dose) between 23 December 2020 and 14 June 2021. RESULTS: Nearly 1 in 10 (6.69%) who had refused a COVID-19 vaccine had experienced racial/ethnic discrimination in a medical setting since the start of the pandemic and had experienced twice as many incidents of racial/ethnic discrimination than those who had accepted the vaccine. Structural equation modelling results indicated a nearly four fold (odds ratio = 3.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.40 to 10.92) total effect of racial/ethnic discrimination on refusing the vaccine which was mediated by low trust in the health system to handle the pandemic (odds ratio = 2.49, 95% confidence interval = 1.12 to 5.39). Analyses adjusted for a range of demographic and COVID-19 related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the importance of addressing racial/ethnic discrimination and the role the National Health Service in regaining trust from ethnic minority groups to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake among ethnic minority adults.

Background To date, public health policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic have been evaluated on the basis of their ability to reduce transmission and minimise economic harm. We aimed to assess the association between COVID-19 policy restrictions and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this longitudinal analysis, we combined daily policy stringency data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker with psychological distress scores and life evaluations captured in the Imperial College London-YouGov COVID-19 Behaviour Tracker Global Survey in fortnightly cross-sections from samples of 15 countries between April 27, 2020, and June 28, 2021. The mental health questions provided a sample size of 432 642 valid responses, with an average of 14 918 responses every 2 weeks. To investigate how policy stringency was associated with mental health, we considered two potential mediators: observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. Countries were grouped on the basis of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic as those pursuing an elimination strategy (countries that aimed to eliminate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within their borders) or those pursuing a mitigation strategy (countries that aimed to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission). Using a combined dataset of country-level and individual-level data, we estimated linear regression models with country-fixed effects (ie, dummy variables representing the countries in our sample) and with individual and contextual covariates. Additionally, we analysed data from a sample of Nordic countries, to compare Sweden (that pursued a mitigation strategy) to other Nordic countries (that adopted a near-elimination strategy). Findings Controlling for individual and contextual variables, higher policy stringency was associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients β=0·014 [95% CI 0·005 to 0·023] for psychological distress; β=–0·010 [–0·015 to –0·004] for life evaluation). Pandemic intensity (number of deaths per 100 000 inhabitants) was also associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients β=0·016 [0·008 to 0·025] for psychological distress; β=–0·010 [–0·017 to –0·004] for life evaluation). The negative association between policy stringency and mental health was mediated by observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. We observed that countries pursuing an elimination strategy used different policy timings and intensities compared with countries pursuing a mitigation strategy. The containment policies of countries pursuing elimination strategies were on average less stringent, and fewer deaths were observed. Interpretation Changes in mental health measures during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were small. More stringent COVID-19 policies were associated with poorer mental health. Elimination strategies minimised transmission and deaths, while restricting mental health effects.

Background To date, public health policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic have been evaluated on the basis of their ability to reduce transmission and minimise economic harm. We aimed to assess the association between COVID-19 policy restrictions and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this longitudinal analysis, we combined daily policy stringency data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker with psychological distress scores and life evaluations captured in the Imperial College London-YouGov COVID-19 Behaviour Tracker Global Survey in fortnightly cross-sections from samples of 15 countries between April 27, 2020, and June 28, 2021. The mental health questions provided a sample size of 432 642 valid responses, with an average of 14 918 responses every 2 weeks. To investigate how policy stringency was associated with mental health, we considered two potential mediators: observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. Countries were grouped on the basis of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic as those pursuing an elimination strategy (countries that aimed to eliminate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within their borders) or those pursuing a mitigation strategy (countries that aimed to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission). Using a combined dataset of country-level and individual-level data, we estimated linear regression models with country-fixed effects (ie, dummy variables representing the countries in our sample) and with individual and contextual covariates. Additionally, we analysed data from a sample of Nordic countries, to compare Sweden (that pursued a mitigation strategy) to other Nordic countries (that adopted a near-elimination strategy). Findings Controlling for individual and contextual variables, higher policy stringency was associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients β=0·014 [95% CI 0·005 to 0·023] for psychological distress; β=–0·010 [–0·015 to ...

Yes ; Economic, physical, built, cultural, learning, social and service environments have a profound effect on lifelong health. However, policy thinking about health research is dominated by the 'biomedical model' which promotes medicalisation and an emphasis on diagnosis and treatment at the expense of prevention. Prevention research has tended to focus on 'downstream' interventions that rely on individual behaviour change, frequently increasing inequalities. Preventive strategies often focus on isolated leverage points and are scattered across different settings. This paper describes a major new prevention research programme that aims to create City Collaboratory testbeds to support the identification, implementation and evaluation of upstream interventions within a whole system city setting. Prevention of physical and mental ill-health will come from the cumulative effect of multiple system-wide interventions. Rather than scatter these interventions across many settings and evaluate single outcomes, we will test their collective impact across multiple outcomes with the goal of achieving a tipping point for better health. Our focus is on early life (ActEarly) in recognition of childhood and adolescence being such critical periods for influencing lifelong health and wellbeing. ; UK Prevention Research Partnership (MR/S037527/1), which is funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Natural Environment Research Council, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), The Health Foundation and Wellcome.