Search

Outdoor education programs have been shown to enhance the development of positive psychology and wellbeing in students. However, there is a lack of research investigating the specific components within outdoor education programs that may enhance positive psychology and, in particular, positive masculinity. The aim of the current study was to investigate a specific outdoor education program targeted for adolescent males with the purpose of developing positive masculinity. A systems analysis framework, Work Domain Analysis, was used to model the program components and interactions between them, to evaluate how they influence the development of positive masculinity. The Work Domain Analysis model was developed from data obtained from four previous participants of the program, and eight subject matter experts (SMEs) who participated in online questionnaires, and face to face online or telephone interviews. The Work Domain Analysis was subsequently refined during an SME workshop, and validated by SMEs post-workshop. The Work Domain Analysis identified multiple components of the program, that were intended to enhance the development of positive masculinity. These include the structured and unstructured activities, the debrief and guided reflections, and Elders night. Recommendations of how the program could be enhanced to focus on mental health challenges in young men from rural community are discussed. Future research could investigate the specific functions of the program and their effects on desired outcome measures in outdoor education programs.

Formal risk assessment is a component of safety management relating to hazardous manual tasks (HMT). Systems thinking approaches are currently gaining interest for supporting safety management. Existing HMT risk assessment methods have been found to be limited in their ability to identify risks across the whole work system; however, systems thinking-based risk assessment (STBRA) methods were not designed for the HMT context and have not been tested in this area. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of four state-of-the-art STBRA methods: Net-HARMS, EAST-BL, FRAM and STPA to determine which would be most useful for identifying HMT risks. Each method was independently applied by one of four analysts to assess the risks associated with a hypothetical HMT system. The outcomes were assessed for alignment with a benchmark analysis. Using signal detection theory (SDT), overall STPA was found to be the best performing method having the highest hit rate, second lowest false alarm rate and highest Matthews Correlation Coefficient of the four methods. Practitioner summary: A comparison of four systems thinking risk assessment methods found that STPA had the highest level of agreement with the benchmark analysis and is the most suitable for practitioners to use to identify the risks associated with HMT systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment access remains low for people with eating disorders. In addressing the complexity inherent in this challenge, this article introduces systems thinking and argues that it could provide new insights. Systems thinking views behavior as an emergent property of a system and considers the relationships between technical, organizational, and social components. Several methods used in safety science incorporate this thinking. For example, AcciMap draws focus to the influence of decisions and actions made across hierarchical levels of a system, including those by government, regulatory bodies, management, services, and individuals. By examining the findings of the existing literature on barriers to eating disorder treatment access according to these levels, it is evident that most identified barriers relate to individuals and that further research is needed to consider the influence of high‐level stakeholders. Research using systems thinking should consider the causal networks of influence from government, regulatory, and organizational decisions and actions through to outcomes for clinicians and individuals. The understanding of how barriers operate within specific healthcare systems also warrants investigation. Systems thinking is yet to be formally applied in the area of eating disorders and thus represents an opportunity to inform the development and implementation of more effective, system wide interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]