Search

BackgroundComparative optimism, the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself, is well established in health risk research. It is unknown, however, whether comparative optimism also permeates people's health expectations and potentially behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesData were collected through an international survey (N = 6485) exploring people's thoughts and psychosocial behaviours relating to COVID-19. This paper reports UK data on comparative optimism. In particular, we examine the belief that negative events surrounding risk and recovery from COVID-19 are perceived as more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself.MethodsUsing online snowball sampling through social media, anonymous UK survey data were collected from N = 645 adults during weeks 5-8 of the UK COVID-19 lockdown. The sample was normally distributed in terms of age and reflected the UK ethnic and disability profile.FindingsRespondents demonstrated comparative optimism where they believed that as compared to others of the same age and gender, they were unlikely to experience a range of controllable (eg accidentally infect/ be infected) and uncontrollable (eg need hospitalization/ intensive care treatment if infected) COVID-19-related risks in the short term (P

The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical insight into the ubiquity of technology enhanced learning. The use of technology in higher education is underpinned by a promise that technology will enhance teaching and learning despite an apparent lack of systematic evidence. This raises questions of how this enhancement agenda persists, and of how technology has established a position of dominance within higher education. This orthodoxy is evident across a range of relevant actors, from commercial interests, universities, government, academics, and technologists. This paper utilises a critical logics approach, which problematises the competing interests of these different actors, exploring ways in which the social, political and fantasmatic practices between these actors contribute to the ubiquity and dominance of technology enhanced learning. This paper argues that the technology enhanced project resists in-depth critique, with the repeated failure of technology to transform education attributed towards academics, students and institutions.

Quality-of-life measurement in depression is advocated as a patient-centred indicator of recovery, but may instead enhance the mimetic authority of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which have been roundly critiqued in mental health. In this paper we draw on the social life of methods approach to extend the well-developed critique of RCTs into the field of quality-of-life measurement. We accomplish this through consideration and critique of the conceptual and epistemological development of quality-of-life measurement in depression, including the role of psychometrics in its development. Examining conceptual developments from the 1970s onwards, we consider how the scientific literature on quality-of-life in depression aligns with behavioural economics and consumerism but falls short of engaging with genuinely patient-centred approaches to recovery. We argue that quality-of-life measures in depression were developed within a consumerist model of healthcare in which the medical model was a central pillar and 'choice' a rhetorical device only. While quality-of-life instrument development was largely funded by industry, psychometrics provided no coherent solution to the 'affective fallacy' (high correlations between quality-of-life and depressive symptoms). Industry has largely abandoned the measures, while psychotherapy research has increasingly endorsed them. We argue that in their design and implementation, quality-of-life measures for depression remain based on a commercial model of healthcare, are conceptually flawed and do not support concepts of patient-centred healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.025 Byline: Ewen Speed Keywords: Ireland; Discourse analysis; Sociology of mental health Abstract: This paper is an exploratory study of ways of talking about mental health. Drawing upon data collected from mental health service users in the Republic of Ireland, it employs discourse analysis within a case study approach to embellish three 'types' of service user identified in the sociology literature. Rather than being seen as specific types it is proposed that patient, consumer and survivor be regarded as a discursive typology which function as discursive resources for service users. The re-conceptualisation of these types, as discourses, allows the researcher to gain thicker descriptions of the ways in which service users socially construct their own perspectives on mental illness. Through a process of discourse analysis, discourses of patients, consumers and survivors are extrapolated out from interview talk with members of mental health social movement organisations or groups. The identified discourses contain intrinsically different ways of talking about mental illness and allude to different conceptions of agency on the part of the service user. It is argued that they offer an insight into bottom-up social constructions of mental illness. It is proposed that these discourses suggest that notions of patients, consumers and survivors have entered the service users' discursive canon and that they are actively utilised by service users to socially construct their perspectives on mental health. Author Affiliation: University of Essex, Health and Human Sciences, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO7 9PE, UK

Background Very little is known about Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller health, or access to and utilisation of health care. They are not coded in NHS data systems and there are multiple barriers including illiteracy, digital exclusion, and discrimination. Aim To gain rare insight into Irish Traveller patients’ emergency healthcare utilisation and outcomes. Method A retrospective general practice review of A&E attendances was performed from January to December 2017, comparing Travellers with the rest of the practice patient population. A search was done for all A&E attendance letters and related admissions. Blind review of the diagnosis and management were assessed by two reviewers for appropriateness of attendance at A&E. The frequency and recurrence of A&E attendances, referral pathway to A&E, location of A&E, and age distribution were compared. Results Traveller patients attending A&E were younger. There were fewer repeat attendances in the travelling community but proportionally more in the Traveller under-20-year-old cohort. Only 38% of A&E attendances in Travellers (56% non-Travellers) were deemed appropriate (χ2 7.16, P = 0.007). Only 20% of Travellers (36% non-Travellers) attending A&E were admitted to hospital (χ2 6.33, P = 0.01). Further, 93% of A&E attendances in Irish Travellers (75% non- Travellers) did not follow initial contact with either a GP or NHS 111 (χ2 9.86, P<0.002). Finally, 51% of Irish Travellers (6% non-Travellers) attended A&E departments distant to their registered GP practice (χ2 89.5, P<0.001). Conclusion This work throws light on health service utilisation patterns by Irish Travellers. A&E attendances may have been more suited to a non-emergency setting and there may have been missed opportunities for contact with primary care or NHS 111, which may have an impact on continuity, onward referral, and quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the experiences of disabled people in the UK assigned to the Employment and Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group. Specifically, it considers the impact of processes of conditionality and sanctions on this group. The research was designed, conducted and analysed collaboratively between a disabled people's user-led organisation (DPULO) and an academic team. The research documents the negative impact that processes of conditionality and sanctions had upon participants. The results highlighted 3 main themes: a lack of equality between disabled claimants and other claimants; significant impact of issues of compliance within a regime that imposes conditions and sanctions; and alternative ways of experiencing and responding to this policy regime. Suggestions are made as to how to involve disabled people in decision-making at policy level to ensure that such conditionality and sanctioning are not used when there is clear evidence that highlights the damaging and detrimental effects of these processes. This research looks at how changes to welfare support in the UK have had a negative impact upon the health and wellbeing of disabled people. The research found that processes of sanctions on welfare payments were ineffective in getting disabled people to engage in work-related activity. Instead they create a range of punishing conditions that are often negative to health. The impact of sanctions was life threatening for some participants. The underlying fear instilled by the threat of sanctions meant many participants described living in a state of constant anxiety. This did not enable people to engage in work related activity. Participants described camaraderie in relationships of mutual support to be helpful in counteracting the negative impacts of sanctions. These findings are of particular relevance for the expansion of business models of welfare across a number of international policy settings. This research recommends more active engagement between welfare system researchers, government and Disabled People User Led Organisations (DPULOs) to develop alternative ways of engaging Disabled people in work related activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]