2 resultados para community nutrition environment

em Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London.


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background The Well London programme used community engagement, complemented by changes to the physical and social neighbourhood environment, to improve physical activity levels, healthy eating and mental wellbeing in the most deprived communities in London. The effectiveness of Well London is being evaluated in a pair-matched cluster randomised trial (CRT). The baseline survey data are reported here. Methods The CRT involved 20 matched pairs of intervention and control communities (defined as UK census lower super output areas; ranked in the 11% most deprived LSOAs in London by Index of Multiple Deprivation) across 20 London boroughs. The primary trial outcomes, sociodemographic information and environmental neighbourhood characteristics were assessed in three quantitative components within the Well London CRT at baseline: a cross-sectional, interviewer-administered adult household survey; a self-completed, school-based adolescent questionnaire; a fieldworker completed neighbourhood environmental audit. Baseline data collection occurred in 2008. Physical activity, healthy eating and mental wellbeing were assessed using standardised, validated questionnaire tools. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data in the outcomes and other variables in the adult and adolescent surveys. Results There were 4107 adults and 1214 adolescent respondents in the baseline surveys. The intervention and control areas were broadly comparable with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The environmental characteristics of the intervention and control neighbourhoods were broadly similar. There was greater between cluster variation in the primary outcomes in the adult population compared to the adolescent population. Levels of healthy eating, smoking and self-reported anxiety/depression were similar in the Well London population and the national Health Survey for England. Levels of physical activity were higher in the Well London population but this is likely to be due to the different measurement tools used in the two surveys. Conclusions Randomisation of social interventions such as Well London is acceptable and feasible and in this study the intervention and control arms are well balanced with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The matched design has improved the statistical efficiency of the study amongst adults but less so amongst adolescents. Follow-up data collection will be completed 2012.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background The practice of reading and discussing literature in groups is long established, stretching back into classical antiquity (Fischer, 2004). While benefits of therapeutic reading groups have been highlighted, research into participants’ perceptions of these groups has been limited (Walwyn & Rowley, 2011). Aims To explore the experiences of those attending therapeutic reading groups, considering the role of both the group, and the literature itself, in participants’ ongoing experiences of distress. Method Eleven participants were recruited from two reading groups in the South East of England. One focus group was run, and eight individuals self selected for individual interviews. The data were analysed together using a thematic analysis drawing on dialogical theories. Results Participants described the group as an anchor, which enabled them to use fiction to facilitate the discussion of difficult emotional topics, without referring directly to personal experience. Two aspects of this process are explored in detail: the use of narratives as transportation, helping to mitigate the intensity of distress; and using fiction to explore possibilities, alternative selves and lives. Conclusions For those who are interested and able, reading groups offer a relatively de-stigmatised route to exploring and mediating experiences of distress. Implications in the present UK funding environment are discussed.