Search

Participatory Design (PD) is increasingly applied to tackle public health challenges, demanding new disciplinary collaborations and practices. In these contexts, any proposed intervention must be supported by evidence that demonstrates it is likely to have the desired effect, particularly if it relies on investment of public funds. An evidence base can include evidence and theory from prior research, evidence generated through primary research, and evaluation. PD research generates evidence through collaboration directly with people who may use or receive an intervention, understanding their experiences and aspirations in situated contexts, without using formal abstractions or assuming evidence generated elsewhere will be directly applicable. Drawing on a case study of a collaboration with public health experts to develop an intervention using PD, we argue there is value in using existing evidence and theory to engage, inform, and inspire intended users of an intervention to participate in the design process. This article aims to support PD researchers and practitioners to consider how evidence can be integrated and produced through PD, enabling collaboration with other disciplines to produce evidence-based and theory-informed interventions to address complex public health challenges.

Objectives: \ud Physical distancing as a non-pharmaceutical intervention aims to reduce interactions between people to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Intimate physical contact outside the household (IPCOH) may expand transmission networks by connecting households. We aimed to explore whether intimacy needs impacted adherence to physical distancing following lockdown in Britain in March 2020.\ud \ud Methods: \ud The Natsal-COVID web-panel survey (July–August 2020) used quota-sampling and weighting to achieve a quasi-representative population sample. We estimate reporting of IPCOH with a romantic/sexual partner in the 4 weeks prior to interview, describe the type of contact, identify demographic and behavioural factors associated with IPCOH and present age-adjusted ORs (aORs). Qualitative interviews (n=18) were conducted to understand the context, reasons and decision making around IPCOH.\ud \ud Results: \ud Of 6654 participants aged 18–59 years, 9.9% (95% CI 9.1% to 10.6%) reported IPCOH. IPCOH was highest in those aged 18–24 (17.7%), identifying as gay or lesbian (19.5%), and in steady non-cohabiting relationships (56.3%). IPCOH was associated with reporting risk behaviours (eg, condomless sex, higher alcohol consumption). IPCOH was less likely among those reporting bad/very bad health (aOR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93) but more likely among those with COVID-19 symptoms and/or diagnosis (aOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65). Two-thirds (64.4%) of IPCOH was reported as being within a support bubble. Qualitative interviews found that people reporting IPCOH deliberated over, and made efforts to mitigate, the risks.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Given 90% of people did not report IPCOH, this contact may not be a large additional contributor to SARS-CoV-2 transmission, although heterogeneity exists within the population. Public health messages need to recognise how single people and partners living apart balance sexual intimacy and relationship needs with adherence to control measures.

Background Adolescence is characterized by identity formation, exploration and initiation of intimate relationships. Much of this occurs at school, making schools key sites of sexual harassment. Schools often lack awareness and understanding of the issue, and UK research on the topic is scarce. We explored prevalence and perceptions of sexual harassment in a school-based mixed-methods study of 13–17 year-old Scottish adolescents. Methods A student survey (N = 638) assessed past 3-months school-based victimization and perpetration prevalence via 17 behavioral items based on the most commonly used school-based sexual harassment measure (‘Hostile Hallways’). Eighteen focus groups (N = 119 students) explored which of 10 behaviors were perceived as harassing/unacceptable and why. Results Two-thirds reported any victimization: 64.7% ‘visual/verbal’ (e.g. sexual jokes) and 34.3% ‘contact/personally-invasive’ behaviors (e.g. sexual touching; most of whom also reported experiencing visual/verbal types) in the past 3-months. Data suggested a gateway effect, such that contact/personally-invasive behaviors are more likely to be reported by those also reporting more common visual/verbal behaviors. Some survey participants reported being unsure about whether they had experienced certain behaviors; and in focus groups, participants expressed uncertainty regarding the acceptability of most behaviors. Ambiguities centered on behavioral context and enactment including: degree of pressure, persistence and physicality; degree of familiarity between the instigator-recipient; and perception of the instigator’s intent. In attempting to resolve ambiguities, students applied normative schemas underpinned by rights (to dignity, respect and equality) and ‘knowingness’, usually engendered by friendship. Conclusions Our study confirms school-based sexual harassment is common but also finds significant nuance in the ways in which students distinguish between acceptable and harassing. School-based strategies to tackle sexual harassment must engage with this complexity.

No abstract available.

OBJECTIVE: To examine sociodemographic and behavioural differences between men who have sex with men (MSM) participating in recent UK convenience surveys and a national probability sample survey. METHODS: We compared 148 MSM aged 18-64 years interviewed for Britain's third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3) undertaken in 2010-2012, with men in the same age range participating in contemporaneous convenience surveys of MSM: 15 500 British resident men in the European MSM Internet Survey (EMIS); 797 in the London Gay Men's Sexual Health Survey; and 1234 in Scotland's Gay Men's Sexual Health Survey. Analyses compared men reporting at least one male sexual partner (past year) on similarly worded questions and multivariable analyses accounted for sociodemographic differences between the surveys. RESULTS: MSM in convenience surveys were younger and better educated than MSM in Natsal-3, and a larger proportion identified as gay (85%-95% vs 62%). Partner numbers were higher and same-sex anal sex more common in convenience surveys. Unprotected anal intercourse was more commonly reported in EMIS. Compared with Natsal-3, MSM in convenience surveys were more likely to report gonorrhoea diagnoses and HIV testing (both past year). Differences between the samples were reduced when restricting analysis to gay-identifying MSM. CONCLUSIONS: National probability surveys better reflect the population of MSM but are limited by their smaller samples of MSM. Convenience surveys recruit larger samples of MSM but tend to over-represent MSM identifying as gay and reporting more sexual risk behaviours. Because both sampling strategies have strengths and weaknesses, methods are needed to triangulate data from probability and convenience surveys.