Search

Background: Many people with intellectual disabilities display high levels of anger, and cognitive-behavioural anger management interventions are used routinely. However, for these methods to be used optimally, a better understanding is needed of different forms of anger assessment. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of a range of measures to self- and carer reports of anger expression, including instruments used to assess mental health and challenging behaviour. Method: Adults with intellectual disabilities, who had been identified as having problems with anger control, their key-workers and home carers all rated the service users' trait anger, using parallel versions of the same instrument (the Provocation Inventory). In addition, service users completed a battery of mental health assessments (the Glasgow Depression Scale, Glasgow Anxiety Scale and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), and both groups of carers completed a battery of challenging behaviour measures (the Hyperactivity and Irritability domains of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the Modified Overt Anger Scale). Results: Participants had high levels of mental health problems (depression: 34%; anxiety: 73%) and severe challenging behaviour (26%). Hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to explore the extent to which anger ratings by the three groups of respondents were predicted by demographic factors, mental health measures and challenging behaviour measures. Older service users rated themselves as less angry and were also rated as less angry by home carers, but not by key-workers. More intellectually able service users were rated as more angry by both sets of carers, but not by the service users themselves. Significantly, mental health status (but not challenging behaviour) predicted service users' self-ratings of anger, whereas challenging behaviour (but not mental health status) predicted carers' ratings of service users' anger. Conclusions: Service users and their carers appear to use different information when rating the service users' anger. Service users' self-ratings reflect their internal emotional state and mental health, as reflected by their ratings of anxiety and depression, whereas staff rate service users' anger on the basis of overt behaviours, as measured by challenging behaviour scales.

Background This study explored barriers and facilitators to integrating health evidence into spatial planning at local authority levels and examined the awareness and use of the Public Health England 'Spatial Planning for Health' resource. Methods A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews followed by an online survey of public health, planning and other built environment professionals in England. Results Views from 19 individuals and 162 survey responses revealed high awareness and use of the Spatial Planning for Health resource, although public health professionals reported greater awareness and use than other professionals. Key barriers to evidence implementation included differences in interpretation and the use of 'evidence' between public health and planning professionals, lack of practical evidence to apply locally and lack of resource and staff capacity in local authorities. Key facilitators included integrating health into the design of local plans, articulating wider benefits to multiple stakeholders and simplifying presenting evidence (regarding language and accessibility). Conclusion The Spatial Planning for Health resource is a useful resource at local authority level. Further work is needed to maximize its use by built environment professionals. Public health teams need support, capacity and skills to ensure that local health and well-being priorities are integrated into local planning documents and decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study explored barriers and facilitators to integrating health evidence into spatial planning at local authority levels and examined the awareness and use of the Public Health England 'Spatial Planning for Health' resource. Methods A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews followed by an online survey of public health, planning and other built environment professionals in England. Results Views from 19 individuals and 162 survey responses revealed high awareness and use of the Spatial Planning for Health resource, although public health professionals reported greater awareness and use than other professionals. Key barriers to evidence implementation included differences in interpretation and the use of 'evidence' between public health and planning professionals, lack of practical evidence to apply locally and lack of resource and staff capacity in local authorities. Key facilitators included integrating health into the design of local plans, articulating wider benefits to multiple stakeholders and simplifying presenting evidence (regarding language and accessibility). Conclusion The Spatial Planning for Health resource is a useful resource at local authority level. Further work is needed to maximize its use by built environment professionals. Public health teams need support, capacity and skills to ensure that local health and well-being priorities are integrated into local planning documents and decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "Exploring the views of planners and public health practitioners on integrating health evidence into spatial planning in England: a mixed-methods study."