Search

"Closeness" between mentor and mentee is previously defined as an important indicator of relationship quality in youth mentoring, but whether this is the case in instrumental mentoring for young adults remains unclear. This is an exploratory study examining how instrumental mentoring serves young adults in their instrumental needs and how relational closeness develops. We applied a mixed-methods design, using quantitative data from a study of an instrumental mentoring program in Rotterdam, The Netherlands (N = 53), and qualitative data from a subsample of participants (N = 10). Two statistically distinctive clusters of closeness were found; 49% of the mentees reported high levels of closeness, and 51% reported low levels of closeness in their mentor relationship. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) showed that the cluster with high levels of closeness was correlated with "instrumental compatibility," "satisfaction," and "perceived attitude similarities." Semi-structured interviews were used to illustrate the role and development of closeness for mentees in both clusters, and three cases were presented. Experiencing closeness seemed a result of receiving instrumental support, not a precondition. Mentees' previous experiences might in some cases explain the lower levels of closeness, but this did not always hinder mentees to profit from their mentors' support.

Although support by experiential peers for individuals with criminal behaviour is increasing, an empirical basis for its effectiveness is lacking. The purpose of this review was to investigate outcomes, mechanisms, and contextual factors of individual support by experiential peers for individuals who display criminal behaviour. We conducted a systematic realist literature review to test and refine our initial programme theory, which included seven mechanisms that may play a role in the desistance-supportive outcomes of experiential peer support. We screened 6,530 scientific papers and eventually included 25 articles focusing on asymmetrical one-on-one support for and by individuals with criminal behaviour. The findings suggest that experiential peers show empathy and have a non-judgmental approach, are considered role models, establish a trusting relationship with clients, offer hope, connect clients to other services, and have a recovery perspective on desistance. We found results indicative of act-desistance, positive personal development and improvements in mental health and personal circumstances, although study results were not consistent. The information on contextual factors was too limited for a robust analysis. Future research should not only focus on objective measures (e.g. absence of criminal behaviour), but also on subjective measures (e.g. hope, self-esteem) and investigate long-term effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific research should be relevant to and include those considered to be disadvantaged and underrepresented. Investigating perceptions, barriers and strategies of inclusive research experienced by researchers can help address some of the challenges to inclusive research. This study explores what inclusive research is, why inclusive research is important, which barriers researchers experience, and which strategies they propose and deploy to address these barriers. We interviewed 15 researchers from the health sciences, (bio)medical sciences, and social sciences who have experience with inclusive research and conducted qualitative content analysis. We identified four important aspects of inclusive research: involvement of researched groups, accessibility, diversity and representativeness and enabling positive change. Societal, methodological, educational and ethical arguments were provided as reasons for why inclusive research is important. Main barriers were researchers’ lack of skills, lack of time and budget, and non-inclusive research materials. This study provides strategies for conducting inclusive research throughout the research cycle, applicable to a wide range of academic fields. We conclude that there is not one correct way to conduct inclusive research. Rather, the strategies can increase inclusivity in qualitative and quantitative studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundA growing number of smokers support smoke-free laws. The theory of self-control provides one possible explanation for why smokers support laws that would restrict their own behaviour: the laws could serve as a self-control device for smokers who are trying to quit.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that support for smoke-free laws predicts smoking cessation.MethodsWe used longitudinal data (1999-2000) from a US national sample of adult smokers (n=6415) from the Current Population Survey, Tobacco Use Supplements. At baseline, smokers were asked whether they made a quit attempt in the past year. They were also asked whether they thought smoking should not be allowed in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges. At 1-year follow-up, smokers were asked whether they had quit smoking.FindingsSmokers who supported smoke-free laws were more likely to have made a recent quit attempt. At 1-year follow-up, those who supported smoke-free laws in 4-6 venues were more likely to have quit smoking (14.8%) than smokers who supported smoke-free laws in 1-3 venues (10.6%) or smokers who supported smoke-free laws in none of the venues (8.0%). These differences were statistically significant in multivariate analyses controlling for demographics.ConclusionsSupport for smoke-free laws among smokers correlates with past quit attempts and predicts future quitting. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that some smokers support smoke-free laws because the laws could help them quit smoking.

IntroductionSeveral states implemented comprehensive smoke-free laws in workplaces (14 states), restaurants (17 states), and bars (13 states) between 2002 and 2007. We tested the hypothesis that public support for smoke-free laws increases at a higher rate in states that implemented smoke-free laws between 2002 and 2007 (group A) than in states that implemented smoke-free laws after that time or not at all (group B). The period before the implementation (1992-2001) was also considered.MethodsData was used from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Tobacco Use Supplements (TUS), which is representative for the U.S. adult population. Respondents were asked whether they thought smoking should not be allowed in indoor work areas, restaurants, and bars and cocktail lounges. Differences in trends were analyzed with binomial mixed effects models.ResultsPopulation support for smoke-free restaurants and bars was higher among group A than among group B before 2002. After 2002, support for smoke-free restaurants and bars increased at a higher rate among group A than among group B. Population support for smoke-free workplaces did not differ between group A and B, and the increase in support for smoke-free workplaces also did not differ between these groups.ConclusionsThe positive association between the implementation of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws and the rate of increase in support for these laws partly supported the hypothesis. The implementation of the laws may have caused support to increase, but also states that have higher support may have been more likely to implement smoke-free laws.

Introduction: The Stoptober House is part of the annual national Stoptober smoking cessation campaign in the Netherlands. During the first week of October, 48 volunteers resided in the tobacco-free Stoptober House for 5 days and received smoking cessation counseling. This pilot study explored how the Stoptober House may have facilitated smoking cessation among participants. Methods: We included 48 individuals who were selected for the Stoptober House (intervention group) and 67 individuals who were not selected (control group). Surveys were conducted at baseline, immediately after 2 and 8 weeks of post-intervention. We compared self-reported abstinence, psychosocial mediators related to smoking cessation, and perceived active elements of the Stoptober House between the intervention and control groups using t/χ2 tests and linear mixed model (LMM) analysis. Sixteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore participants' perspectives on the elements contributing to their success in quitting smoking. Results: At 8 weeks of follow-up, a higher proportion of participants in the intervention group (24/48 [50%]) reported being abstinent compared to the control group (5/67 [7%]; p < 0.001). Among participants who reported making a quit attempt, 22/38 (57.9%) in the intervention group remained abstinent compared to 4/17 (23.5%) in the control group (p = 0.022). The intervention group also exhibited higher self-efficacy to quit smoking throughout the follow-up period and higher social support immediately after the Stoptober House. No significant differences were observed in other psychosocial factors. The interviews highlighted several perceived elements of the Stoptober House that contributed to smoking cessation success, including restricted smoking opportunities, access to smoking cessation counselors, and peer support. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that the Stoptober House provides support that can help people quit smoking. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and determine the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in promoting long-term abstinence among specific groups of smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]