Suchergebnisse

Background In 2017 Public Health England and Sport England commissioned a Consultant-led Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) pilot to test the feasibility and acceptability of embedding physical activity interventions in secondary care clinical pathways. The aim of this paper is to report qualitative findings exploring the experience of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients involved in the Active Hospital pilot. Methods Qualitative data was collected by semi-structured interviews with Active Hospital pilot SEM Consultants, and staff and patients involved in three clinical pathways. Interviews with SEM Consultants explored the experience of developing and implementing the pilot. Interviews with staff and patients explored the experience of delivering and receiving Active Hospital interventions. Data were analysed thematically. Results Interviews identified the importance of the Active Hospital pilot being Consultant-led for the following reasons; i) having trusting relationships with decision makers, ii) having sufficient influence to effect change, iii) identifying champions within the system, and iv) being adaptable to change and ensuring the programme fits within the wider strategic frameworks. HCPs emphasised the importance of the Active Hospital interventions fitting easily within existing work practices, the need for staff training and to tailor interventions for individual patient needs. The Active Hospital pilot was well received by patients, however a lack of dedicated resource and capacity to deliver the intervention was highlighted as a challenge by both patients and HCPs. Conclusion The SEM Consultants' ability to navigate the political climate of a large National Health Service (NHS) Trust with competing agendas and limited resource was valuable. The interventions were well received and a valued addition to usual clinical care. However, implementation and ongoing delivery of the pilot encountered challenges including lack of capacity within the system and delays with recruiting to the delivery teams in each pathway.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) considers physical inactivity (PIA) as a critical noncommunicable factor for disease and mortality, affecting more women than men. In 2013, the WHO set a 10% reduction of the PIA prevalence, with the goal to be reached by 2025. Changes in the 2013-2017 period of physical inactivity prevalence in the 28 European Union (EU) countries were evaluated to track the progress in achieving WHO 2025 target. METHODS: In 2013 and 2017 EU Special Eurobarometers, the physical activity levels reported by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire of 53,607 adults were analyzed. Data were considered as a whole sample and country-by-country. A χ2 test was used to analyze the physical inactivity prevalence (%) between countries, analyzing women and men together and separately. Additionally, PIA prevalence was analyzed between years (2013-2017) for the overall EU sample and within-country using a Z-Score for two population proportions. RESULTS: The PIA prevalence increased between 2013 and 2017 for the overall EU sample (p < 0.001), and for women (p = 0.04) and men (p < 0.001) separately. Data showed a higher PIA prevalence in women versus men during both years (p < 0.001). When separately considering changes in PIA by gender, only Belgium's women and Luxembourg's men showed a reduction in PIA prevalence. Increases in PIA prevalence over time were observed in women from Austria, Croatia, Germany, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia and in men from Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain. CONCLUSIONS: PIA prevalence showed an overall increase across the EU and for both women and men between 2013 and 2017, with higher rates of PIA reported for women versus men during both years. PIA prevalence was reduced in only Belgium's women and Luxembourg's men. Our data indicate a limited gender-sensible approach while tacking PIA prevalence with no progress reaching global voluntary reductions of PIA for 2025.

AbstractDemands to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) are growing. These demands and the government standards arising from them both call for trustworthy AI. In response, we adopt a convergent approach to review, evaluate, and synthesize research on the trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences and propose a research agenda. Evidential and conceptual histories of research on trust and trustworthiness reveal persisting ambiguities and measurement shortcomings related to inconsistent attention to the contextual and social dependencies and dynamics of trust. Potentially underappreciated in the development of trustworthy AI for environmental sciences is the importance of engaging AI users and other stakeholders, which human–AI teaming perspectives on AI development similarly underscore. Co‐development strategies may also help reconcile efforts to develop performance‐based trustworthiness standards with dynamic and contextual notions of trust. We illustrate the importance of these themes with applied examples and show how insights from research on trust and the communication of risk and uncertainty can help advance the understanding of trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences.