Workplace sedentary health risks and exercise interventions

Sedentary lifestyle and physical inactivity are causes of major health risks including cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes and cancer. Workplace is an ideal setting to understand both the prevalence of these risks and for devising and implementing effective intervention strategies. It is now possible to perform direct workplace assessments to identify the sedentary prevalence and assess the sedentary related health risks, which can include assessing the risks of atherosclerosis, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, hyperglyaemia and reduced cardiorespiratory capacity. Based on evaluating the workplace health risks, it is possible to identify individuals who may be at higher CVD risk so they can be targeted with a risk-reduction intervention that can also be tailored towards improving healthy behaviours, especially towards physical activity activity and exercise. This chapter explains workplace sedentary risks, and provides examples of CVD risk prevalence, particularly within the university campus workplace, and presents examples of an exercise based targeted interventions aimed at reducing CVD risks amongst high risk sedentary employees.

Systemizers are better code-breakers: self-reported systemizing predicts code-breaking performance in expert hackers and naïve participants

Studies on hacking have typically focused on motivational aspects and general personality traits of the individuals who engage in hacking; little systematic research has been conducted on predispositions that may be associated not only with the choice to pursue a hacking career but also with performance in either naïve or expert populations. Here, we test the hypotheses that two traits that are typically enhanced in autism spectrum disorders—attention to detail and systemizing—may be positively related to both the choice of pursuing a career in information security and skilled performance in a prototypical hacking task (i.e., crypto-analysis or code-breaking). A group of naïve participants and of ethical hackers completed the Autism Spectrum Quotient, including an attention to detail scale, and the Systemizing Quotient (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001, 2003). They were also tested with behavioral tasks involving code-breaking and a control task involving security X-ray image interpretation. Hackers reported significantly higher systemizing and attention to detail than non-hackers. We found a positive relation between self-reported systemizing (but not attention to detail) and code-breaking skills in both hackers and non-hackers, whereas attention to detail (but not systemizing) was related with performance in the X-ray screening task in both groups, as previously reported with naïve participants (Rusconi et al., 2015). We discuss the theoretical and translational implications of our findings.

Role of assessment components and recent adverse outcomes in risk estimation and prediction: use of the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) in an adult secure inpatient mental health service

The Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability is a structured judgement tool used to inform risk estimation for multiple adverse outcomes. In research, risk estimates outperform the tool's strength and vulnerability scales for violence prediction. Little is known about what its’component parts contribute to the assignment of risk estimates and how those estimates fare in prediction of non-violent adverse outcomes compared with the structured components. START assessment and outcomes data from a secure mental health service (N=84) was collected. Binomial and multinomial regression analyses determined the contribution of selected elements of the START structured domain and recent adverse risk events to risk estimates and outcomes prediction for violence, self-harm/suicidality, victimisation, and self-neglect. START vulnerabilities and lifetime history of violence, predicted the violence risk estimate; self-harm and victimisation estimates were predicted only by corresponding recent adverse events. Recent adverse events uniquely predicted all corresponding outcomes, with the exception of self-neglect which was predicted by the strength scale. Only for victimisation did the risk estimate outperform prediction based on the START components and recent adverse events. In the absence of recent corresponding risk behaviour, restrictions imposed on the basis of START-informed risk estimates could be unwarranted and may be unethical.