Search

This paper foregrounds the use of "Living Labs" as instruments for the delivery of just low carbon transformations. Living Labs are commonly understood as stakeholder-centred, iterative and open-innovation ecosystems that involve multiple forms of co-creation and engagement among different actors in a given territory. Over a period of three years, thanks to a unique pan-European action research study, three such Labs were set up in different locations in Europe -- a large North-western European city (Manchester, England), a mid-sized mountainous town in South-eastern Europe (Metsovo, Greece) and a series of rural settlements in Central Europe (Nyírbátor, Hungary). Working closely with local residents and relevant organisational stakeholders, the research teams that led the Labs undertook multiple low-carbon interventions in the homes of low-income residents, while continuously monitoring the broader impacts of intermediation practices on energy equity and sustainability across three consecutive cycles of activity. We present and discuss the results of these activities, so as to uncover the impacts of Living Labs on energy poverty both before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. Methods: We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. Results: We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. Conclusion: Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants are at risk of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and subsequent ill-health in Europe; yet, European minimum reception standards do not address SGBV. Hence, this paper explores the nature of SGBV occurring in this sector and discusses determinants for ‘Desirable Prevention’. Methods: Applying community-based participatory research, we conducted an SGBV knowledge, attitude and practice survey with residents and professionals in eight European countries. We conducted logistic regression using mixed models to analyse the data in R. Results: Of the 562 respondents, 58.3% reported cases of direct (23.3%) or peer (76.6%) victimization. Our results indicate that when men were involved, it most likely concerned sexual perpetration (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.09, confidence interval [CI]: 1.2; 13.89) and physical victimization (aOR: 2.57, CI: 1.65; 4), compared with females, who then rather perpetrated emotional violence (aOR: 1.85, CI: 1.08; 3.13) and underwent sexual victimization (aOR: 7.14, CI: 3.33; 16.67). Compared with others, asylum seekers appeared more likely to perpetrate physical (aOR 7.14, CI: 4; 12.5) and endure socio-economic violence (aOR: 10, CI: 1.37; 100), whereas professionals rather bore emotional (aOR: 2.01, CI: 0.98; 4.12) and perpetrated socio-economic violence (aOR: 25.91, CI: 13.41; 50.07). When group perpetration (aOR: 2.13, CI: 1.27; 3.58) or victimization (aOR: 1.84, CI: 1.1; 3.06) occurred, it most likely concerned socio-economic violence. Conclusion: Within the European asylum reception sector, residents and professionals of both sexes experience SGBV victimization and perpetration. Given the lack of prevention policies, our findings call for urgent Desirable Prevention programmes addressing determinants socio-ecologically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]