The first time: young people and sex in Northern Ireland.

The sexual health of people, particularly young people, in Northern Ireland is currently poor. Yet there has been little research conducted on sexual attitudes and lifestyles. This paper is based on data from the first ever major research project in this field in Northern Ireland. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, it targeted young people aged 14-25. A combination of a self-administered survey questionnaire, focus group discussions and one-to-one interviews was found to be most suitable for the collection of sensitive data on sexuality in a country where the social and moral climate had previously prevented studies of this nature. Information was collected on sexual attitudes and behaviour generally. This paper focuses on one crucial issue: the age of first sexual encounter. It explores the attitudes of young people to that experience and the use of contraception. Many of the findings match those of similar large-scale surveys in England and Wales, including the modal age of first sexual encounter and the influence of peer pressure on decision-making about first sex. There were significant gender differences in both behaviour and attitudes. It is hoped that the research results will influence future education and health policy, which has all too often been based on ignorance.

Sexual behaviour of young people in Northern Ireland: First sexual experience

Two National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in Britain (Natsal) were conducted, one in 1990 and one in 2000. Northern Ireland was excluded from both studies. Now, for the first time, comparable data about sexual attitudes and lifestyles of young people (14- to 25-year-olds) in Northern Ireland are available. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires, one-to-one interviews and focus-group discussions. As in Natsal 1990 and 2000, young people were asked about their sexual attitudes towards sex, experiences of sex education, knowledge of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and, if sexually active, about the circumstances in which sexual intercourse occurred. A total of 1013 young people in the target age group completed the self-administered questionnaire. Young people in Northern Ireland do not differ significantly from their counterparts in Britain in terms of sexual lifestyles and attitudes. Some 53.3% of all respondents reported that they had had sexual intercourse. Condom use at first sex was reported by 64% of sexually active respondents; 27.4% said they used no contraception; 26.7% of all respondents said they had sex before age 16. Respondents who first had sex when they were 15 or 16 years were more likely than other respondents to say that 'being drunk' was the main reason why intercourse occurred. Peer pressure to engage in sex was more prevalent among males than females. Young people in Northern Ireland regard friends as their most important source of sex education. School is the second most important source but most respondents wanted more sex education in school. It is important that it is needs focused and includes potentially sensitive and contentious information.

How well do elderly people complete individualised quality of life measures: an exploratory study.

This research note describes and discusses a study which investigated the feasibility of using an individualised approach to measure the quality of life (QoL) of a sample of older people who were in receipt of an early hospital discharge service. Most participants (86%) were able to identify areas of their lives which were important to them, rate their level of functioning on each of these areas and rank their life areas in order of importance. However, 39% were unable to quantify the relative importance of each area of life. Indeed, the majority (57%) of participants who were over 75 years old could not complete this “weighting” or evaluative stage. The results suggest that the phenomenological approach to measuring QoL may be employed successfully with older people but that the “weighting” system used by existing individualised QoL measures needs to be refined, especially when assessing people over 75.

Measuring the health-related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease.

Objectives—To inform researchers and clinicians about the most appropriate generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life for use among people with ischaemic heart disease. Methods—MEDLINE and BIDS were searched for research papers which contained a report of at least one of the three most common generic instruments or at least one of the five disease specific instruments used with ischaemic heart disease patients. Evidence for the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of these instruments was critically appraised. Results—Of the three generic measures—the Nottingham health profile, sickness impact profile, and short form 36 (SF-36)—the SF-36 appears to offer the most reliable, valid, and sensitive assessment of quality of life. However, a few of the SF-36 subscales lack a sufficient degree of sensitivity to detect change in a patient’s clinical condition. According to the best available evidence, the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire should be preferred to the Seattle angina questionnaire, the quality of life index cardiac version, the angina pectoris quality of life questionnaire, and the summary index. Overall, research on disease specific measures is sparse compared to the number of studies which have investigated generic measures. Conclusions—An assessment of the quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease should comprise a disease specific measure in addition to a generic measure. The SF-36 and the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire (version 2) are the most appropriate currently available generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life, respectively. Further research into the measurement of health related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease is required in order to address the problems (such as lack of sensitivity to detect change) identified by the review.