descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 2021 Netherlands Springer Science and Business Media LLC CIHR
Authors: Julia Nordlund; Richard S. Henry; Linda Kwakkenbos; Marie-Eve Carrier; +115 Authors
Julia Nordlund; Richard S. Henry; Linda Kwakkenbos; Marie-Eve Carrier; Brooke Levis; Warren R. Nielson; Susan J. Bartlett; Laura Dyas; Lydia Tao; Claire Fedoruk; Karen Nielsen; Marie Hudson; Janet E. Pope; Tracy M. Frech; Shadi Gholizadeh; Sindhu R. Johnson; Pamela Piotrowski; Lisa R. Jewett; Jessica K. Gordon; Lorinda Chung; Dan Bilsker; Alexander W. Levis; Kimberly A. Turner; Julie Cumin; Joep Welling; Catherine Fortune; Catarina Leite; Karen Gottesman; Maureen Sauve; Tatiana Sofia Rodriguez-Reyna; Maggie Larché; Ward van Breda; Maria E. Suarez-Almazor; Amanda Wurz; Nicole Culos-Reed; Vanessa L. Malcarne; Maureen D. Mayes; Isabelle Boutron; Luc Mouthon; Andrea Benedetti; Brett D. Thombs; Robert Riggs; Shervin Assassi; Ghassan El-Baalbaki; Carolyn Ells; Cornelia H. M. van den Ende; Kim Fligelstone; Amy Gietzen; Geneviève Guillot; Daphna Harel; Monique Hinchcliff; Christelle Nguyen; François Rannou; Michelle Richard; Anne A. Schouffoer; Christian Agard; Nassim Ait Abdallah; Alexandra Albert; Marc André; Elana J. Bernstein; Sabine Berthier; Lyne Bissonnette; Alessandra Bruns; Patricia Carreira; Marion Casadevall; Benjamin Chaigne; Chase Correia; Benjamin Crichi; Christopher P. Denton; Robyn T. Domsic; James V. Dunne; Bertrand Dunogue; Regina Fare; Dominique Farge-Bancel; Paul R. Fortin; Brigitte Granel-Rey; Genevieve Gyger; Eric Hachulla; Ariane L. Herrick; Sabrina Hoa; Alena Ikic; Niall Jones; Suzanne Kafaja; Nader Khalidi; Marc Lambert; David Launay; Hélène Maillard; Nancy Maltez; Joanne Manning; Isabelle Marie; Maria Martin; Thierry Martin; Ariel Masetto; François Maurier; Arsene Mekinian; Sheila Melchor; Mandana Nikpour; Louis Olagne; Vincent Poindron; Susanna Proudman; Alexis Régent; Sébastien Rivière; David Robinson; Esther Rodriguez; Sophie Roux; Perrine Smets; Vincent Sobanski; Robert Spiera; Virginia D. Steen; Evelyn Sutton; Carter Thorne; John Varga; Pearce G. Wilcox; Angelica Bourgeault; Mara Cañedo Ayala; Andrea Carboni Jiménez; Marie-Nicole Discepola; Maria Gagarine; Nora Østbø;
Abstract Background Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. We completed an initial feasibility trial of an online self-administered version of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program using the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Due to low intervention offer uptake, we will conduct a new feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial, using a two-arm parallel, partially nested RCT design. The SPIN-SELF Program has also been revised to include facilitator-led videoconference group sessions in addition to online material. We will test the group-based intervention delivery format, then evaluate the effect of the SPIN-SELF Program on disease management self-efficacy (primary) and patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes (secondary). Methods This study is a feasibility trial with progression to full-scale RCT, pending meeting pre-defined criteria, of the SPIN-SELF Program. Participants will be recruited from the ongoing SPIN Cohort (http://www.spinsclero.com/en/cohort) and via social media and partner patient organizations. Eligible participants must have SSc and low to moderate disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) Scale score ≤ 7.0). Participants will be randomized (1:1 allocation) to the group-based SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. The primary outcome in the full-scale trial will be disease management self-efficacy based on SEMCD Scale scores at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include SEMCD scores 6 months post-randomization plus patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. We will include 40 participants to assess feasibility. At the end of the feasibility portion, stoppage criteria will be used to determine if the trial procedures or SPIN-SELF Program need important modifications, thereby requiring a re-set for the full-scale trial. Otherwise, the full-scale RCT will proceed, and outcome data from the feasibility portion will be utilized in the full-scale trial. In the full-scale RCT, 524 participants will be recruited. Discussion The SPIN-SELF Program may improve disease management self-efficacy, patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes in people with SSc. SPIN works with partner patient organizations around the world to disseminate its programs free-of-charge. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT04246528. Registered on 27 January 2020
descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 2021 Netherlands, Australia MDPI AG
Authors: Susan L. Prescott; Ganesa Wegienka; Remco Kort; David H. Nelson; +27 Authors
Susan L. Prescott; Ganesa Wegienka; Remco Kort; David H. Nelson; Sabine Gabrysch; Trevor Hancock; Anita L. Kozyrskyj; Christopher A. Lowry; Nicole Redvers; Blake Poland; Jake M. Robinson; Jean-Claude Moubarac; Sara L. Warber; Janet K. Jansson; Aki Sinkkonen; John Penders; Susan E. Erdman; Ralph Nanan; Matilda van den Bosch; Kirk Schneider; Nicholas J. Schroeck; Tanja Sobko; Jamie Harvie; George A. Kaplan; Rob Moodie; Laura Lengnick; Isaac Prilleltensky; Yuria Celidwen; Susan H. Berman; Alan C. Logan; Brian Berman;
The “Earthrise” photograph, taken on the 1968 Apollo 8 mission, became one of the most significant images of the 20th Century. It triggered a profound shift in environmental awareness and the potential for human unity—inspiring the first Earth Day in 1970. Taking inspiration from these events 50 years later, we initiated Project Earthrise at our 2020 annual conference of inVIVO Planetary Health. This builds on the emergent concept of planetary health, which provides a shared narrative to integrate rich and diverse approaches from all aspects of society towards shared solutions to global challenges. The acute catastrophe of the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn greater attention to many other interconnected global health, environmental, social, spiritual, and economic problems that have been underappreciated or neglected for decades. This is accelerating opportunities for greater collaborative action, as many groups now focus on the necessity of a “Great Transition”. While ambitious integrative efforts have never been more important, it is imperative to apply these with mutualistic value systems as a compass, as we seek to make wiser choices. Project Earthrise is our contribution to this important process. This underscores the imperative for creative ecological solutions to challenges in all systems, on all scales with advancing global urbanization in the digital age—for personal, environmental, economic and societal health alike. At the same time, our agenda seeks to equally consider our social and spiritual ecology as it does natural ecology. Revisiting the inspiration of “Earthrise”, we welcome diverse perspectives from across all dimensions of the arts and the sciences, to explore novel solutions and new normative values. Building on academic rigor, we seek to place greater value on imagination, kindness and mutualism as we address our greatest challenges, for the health of people, places and planet.
descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 2021 Italy, Italy, Belgium, United Kingdom, Belgium, Portugal, Turkey, Netherlands, Hungary, Italy, United Kingdom SAGE Publications
Authors: Ashley K. Randall; Gabriel Leon; Emanuele Basili; Tamás Martos; +91 Authors
Ashley K. Randall; Gabriel Leon; Emanuele Basili; Tamás Martos; Michael Boiger; Michela Baldi; Lauren Hocker; Kai Kline; Alessio Masturzi; Richmond Aryeetey; Eran Bar-Kalifa; Susan D. Boon; Luis Botella; Tom Burke; Katherine B. Carnelley; Alan Carr; Arobindu Dash; Mimi Fitriana; Stanley O. Gaines; Sarah Galdiolo; Claire M. Hart; Susanna Joo; Barani Kanth; Evangelos Karademas; Gery Karantzas; Selina A. Landolt; Louise McHugh; Anne Milek; Eddie Murphy; Jean C. Natividade; Alda Portugal; Álvaro Quiñones; Ana Paula Relvas; Pingkan C. B. Rumondor; Petruta Rusu; Viola Sallay; Luis Angel Saul; David P. Schmitt; Laura Sels; Sultan Shujja; Laura K. Taylor; S. Burcu Ozguluk; Leslie Verhofstadt; Gyesook Yoo; Martina Zemp; Silvia Donato; Casey J. Totenhagen; Rahel L. van Eickels; Adnan Adil; Emmanuel Anongeba Anaba; Emmanuel Asampong; Sarah Beauchemin-Roy; Anna Berry; Audrey Brassard; Susan Chesterman; Lizzie Ferguson; Gabriela Fonseca; Justine Gaugue; Marie Geonet; Neele Hermesch; Rahmattullah Khan Abdul Wahab Khan; Laura Knox; Marie-France Lafontaine; Nicholas Lawless; Amanda Londero-Santos; Sofia Major; Tiago A. Marot; Ellie Mullins; Pauldy C. J. Otermans; Ariela F. Pagani; Miriam Parise; Roksana Parvin; Mallika De; Katherine Péloquin; Bárbara Rebelo; Francesca Righetti; Daniel Romano; Sara Salavati; Steven Samrock; Mary Serea; Chua Bee Seok; Luciana Sotero; Owen Stafford; Christoforos Thomadakis; Cigdem Topcu-Uzer; Carla Ugarte; Wah Yun Low; Petra Simon-Zámbori; Ching Sin Siau; Diana-Sînziana Duca; Cornelia Filip; Hayoung Park; Sinead Wearen; Guy Bodenmann; Claudia Chiarolanza;
Article first published online: August 26, 2021 Following the global outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020, individuals report psychological distress associated with the “new normal”—social distancing, financial hardships, and increased responsibilities while working from home. Given the interpersonal nature of stress and coping responses between romantic partners, based on the systemic transactional model this study posits that perceived partner dyadic coping may be an important moderator between experiences of COVID-19 psychological distress and relationship quality. To examine these associations, self-report data from 14,020 people across 27 countries were collected during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–July, 2020). It was hypothesized that higher symptoms of psychological distress would be reported post-COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 restrictions (Hypothesis 1), reports of post-COVID-19 psychological distress would be negatively associated with relationship quality (Hypothesis 2), and perceived partner DC would moderate these associations (Hypothesis 3). While hypotheses were generally supported, results also showed interesting between-country variability. Limitations and future directions are presented.
Key points1 Maternity services across Europe during the pandemic has undergone changes to limit virus transmission; however, many changes are not evidence-based.2 Although these changes were introduced to keep women, babies and healthcare staff safe, the exclusion of companions and the separation of mothers and babies is particularly antithetical to a human rights-based approach to quality care.3 A poll of COST Action 18211 network members showed that inconsistency in the application of restrictions was high, and there were significant deviations from the recommendations of authoritative bodies.4 Concerns have emerged that restrictions in practice may have longer term negative impacts on mothers and their families and, in particular, may impact on the long-term health of babies.5 When practice changes deviate from evidence-based frameworks that underpin quality care, they must be monitored, appraised and evaluated to minimise unintended iatrogenic effects.
Abstract How do organizational responses to environmental disruptions affect employees' job‐related well‐being? As the COVID‐19 pandemic has led to new ways of working, increased health concerns, and added responsibilities, employees are facing important challenges in doing their work that can affect their job‐related well‐being. This study aims to understand how different types of work support (i.e., perceived organizational support and supervisor accessibility) in response to environmental disruption interact with personality traits (i.e., core self‐evaluations and future focus) to influence changes in employees' affective commitment to their organization and in their job‐related well‐being. We develop a moderated mediation model and test it on data collected from 295 individuals working in the United Kingdom. We find that work support for the COVID‐19 pandemic, both perceived organizational support and supervisor accessibility, is associated with more positive changes in employees' job‐related well‐being and that this effect is mediated by changes in employees' affective commitment to their organization. Furthermore, we find that personality traits moderate the relationships between these two types of support and changes in affective commitment to the organization, with those relationships being more positive for employees with low core self‐evaluations and for those with a high future focus.
Authors: Kathleen Hermans; Elisabeth Berger; Lisa Biber-Freudenberger; Lisa Bossenbroek; +14 Authors
Kathleen Hermans; Elisabeth Berger; Lisa Biber-Freudenberger; Lisa Bossenbroek; Laura Ebeler; Juliane Groth; Jochen Hack; Jan Hanspach; Kendisha Soekardjo Hintz; Jude Ndzifon Kimengsi; Yim Ming Connie Kwong; Robert Oakes; Raffaella Pagogna; Tobias Plieninger; Harald Sterly; Kees van der Geest; Jasper van Vliet; Charlotte Wiederkehr;
Place-based research faces multiple threats, including both natural and global health hazards and political conflicts, which may disrupt fieldwork. The current COVID-19 pandemic shows how these threats can drastically affect social-ecological research activities given its engagement with different local stakeholders, disciplines, and knowledge systems. The crisis reveals the need for adaptive research designs while also providing an opportunity for a structural shift towards a more sustainable and inclusive research landscape.
PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic is certain to have an unprecedented impact on the global population, but marginalized and vulnerable groups in low-income countries (LICs) are predicted to carry the largest burden. This study focuses on the implications of COVID-19-related measures on three population groups in India, including (1) migrant laborers (of which a majority come from Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), as well as Other Backward Classes (OBCs)), (2) children from low-income families and, (3) refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts a sequential mixed-method research design. A desk-based study of a selection of government reports was undertaken on the COVID-19-related mitigation measures. The desk study was followed by in-depth interviews with purposively recruited high-ranking experts in specific sectors of policy implementation and service delivery across the country.FindingsThe outcomes of this study shed light on (1) the most urgent needs that need to be addressed per population group, (2) the variety of state-level responses as well as best practices observed to deal with mitigation issues and (3) opportunities for quick relief as well as more long-term solutions.Practical implicationsThe COVID-19 pandemic has not only reduced people's means of maintaining a livelihood but has simultaneously revealed some of India's long-standing problems with infrastructure and resource distribution in a range of sectors, including nutrition and health, education, etc. There is an urgent need to construct effective pathways to trace and respond to those people who are desolate, and to learn from – and support – good practices at the grassroot level.Originality/valueThe current study contributes to the discussion on how inclusive public health might be reached.
Background: People with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases report lower levels of physical activity and well-being than the general population, which potentially is exacerbated through the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored the international literature on physical activity, sedentary behavior and well-being in adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases during the first wave of the pandemic. Method: In a rapid review, we included studies reporting on physical activity, sedentary behavior and/or well-being in adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases. Four databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase) were searched for studies published until 30 September 2020. Results: We included twenty-nine studies involving eleven different types of disabilities or health conditions from twenty-one different countries. Twenty-six studies reported on physical activity, of which one reported an increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, four studies reported no difference, and twenty-one studies reported a decrease. Thirteen studies reported a decline in well-being. Only one study measured sedentary behavior, reporting an increase. Conclusion: Despite the variety in methods used, almost all studies reported negative impacts on physical activity and well-being in people with physical disabilities and/or chronic disease during the first wave of the pandemic. These findings highlight the importance of supporting this population, especially in times of crisis.
The Covid-19 pandemic increases consumers’ worries and makes them experience a loss of control over their lives. We investigate how these factors affect the roles that brands play in consumers’ lives. Results of a longitudinal survey (N = 5,393) and an online experiment (N = 387) show that brands gain relevance and are more firmly included in consumers’ self-concepts if consumers experience more worries about Covid-19 and a lack of control. Brands can benefit from this by addressing worries associated with the crisis in their advertisements. This is particularly effective for consumers who express greater worry about the Covid-19 pandemic.
This paper examines the Global Climate Action Agenda (GCAA) and discusses options to improve sub- and non-state involvement in post-2020 climate governance. A framework that stimulates sub- and non-state action is a necessary complement to national governmental action, as the latter falls short of achieving low-carbon and climate-resilient development as envisaged in the Paris Agreement. Applying design principles for an ideal-type orchestration framework, we review literature and gather expert judgements to assess whether the GCAA has been collaborative, comprehensive, evaluative and catalytic. Results show that there has been greater coordination among orchestrators, for instance in the organization of events. However, mobilization efforts remain event-driven and too little effort is invested in understanding the progress of sub- and non-state action. Data collection has improved, although more sophisticated indicators are needed to evaluate climate and sustainable development impacts. Finally, the GCAA has recorded more action, but relatively little by actors in developing countries. As the world seeks to recover from the COVID-19 crisis and enters a new decade of climate action, the GCAA could make a vital contribution in challenging times by helping governments keep and enhance climate commitments; strengthening capacity for sub- and non-state action; enabling accountability; and realizing sustainable development.