This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Christopher R. Long and James R. Averill, Solitude: An Exploration of Benefits of Being Alone, pp. 21–44. Historically, philosophers, artists, and spiritual leaders have extolled the benefits of solitude; currently, advice on how to achieve solitude is the subject of many popular books and articles. Seldom, however, has solitude been studied by psychologists, who have focused instead on the negative experiences associated with being alone, particularly loneliness. Solitude, in contrast to loneliness, is often a positive state—one that may be sought rather than avoided. In this article, we examine some of the benefits that have been attributed to solitude—namely, freedom, creativity, intimacy, and spirituality. In subsequent sections, we consider the environmental settings and personality characteristics conducive to solitude, how time spent alone is experienced differently across the life span, and the potential dangers related to the attractiveness of solitude. We conclude with a brief discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of solitude.

Solitude may be positive or negative, depending on situational and personal factors. From prior research, nine types of solitude were identified. Based on data from a questionnaire study of undergraduate participants, factor analysis suggests that these nine types can be reduced to three dimensions, two positive and one negative. These are, respectively, Inner-Directed Solitude (characterized by self-discovery and inner peace), Outer-Directed Solitude (characterized by intimacy and spirituality), and Loneliness. Personality and value correlates, as well as situational correlates, of the various types of solitude also were explored.

Background The Pacific Islander population in the United States is growing rapidly. However, research on Pacific Islanders in the US is limited, or sometimes misleading due to aggregation with Asian Americans. This project seeks to add to the dearth of health literature by conducting a health assessment of Marshallese in northwest Arkansas. Methods Using a community-based participatory research approach, nine health screening events were conducted at local Marshallese churches. Participants completed the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey core questionnaire and diabetes module if applicable. Biometric data, including Hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and body mass index, was gathered by an interprofessional team. Results 401 participants completed health screenings. High proportions of diabetes, obesity, and hypertension were found. A high percentage of participants were uninsured, and multiple barriers to health care were found within the sample. Discussion This project represents one of the first broad health assessments of Pacific Islanders in the US. Proportions of diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and uninsured found in the sample are much higher than national proportions.

Background Participants in health research studies typically express interest in receiving results from the studies in which they participate. However, participants’ preferences and experiences related to receiving results are not well understood. In general, existing studies have had relatively small sample sizes and typically address specific and often sensitive issues within targeted populations. Methods The present study used an online survey to explore attitudes and experiences of registrants in ResearchMatch, a large database of past, present, and potential health research participants. Survey respondents provided information related to whether or not they received research results from studies in which they participated, the methods used to communicate results, their satisfaction with results, and when and how they would like to receive research results from future studies. 70,699 ResearchMatch registrants were notified of the study’s topic. Of the 5,207 registrants who requested full information about the study, 3,381 respondents completed the survey. Results Approximately 33% of respondents with previous health research participation reported receiving results. Approximately half of respondents with previous research participation reported no opportunity to request results. However, almost all respondents said researchers should always or sometimes offer results to participants. Respondents expressed particular interest in results related to their (or a loved one's) health, as well as information about studies’ purposes and any medical advances based on the results. In general, respondents’ most preferred dissemination methods for results were email and website postings. The least desirable dissemination methods for results included Twitter, conference calls, and text messages. Across all results, we compare the responses of respondents with and without previous research participation experience, and those who have worked in research organizations vs. those who have not. Compared to respondents who have previous participation experience, a greater proportion of respondents with no participation experience indicated that results should always be shared with participants. Likewise, respondents with no participation experience placed higher importance on the receipt of each type of results information included in the survey. Conclusions We present findings from a survey assessing attitudes and experiences of a broad sample of respondents that addresses gaps in knowledge related to participants’ preferences for receiving results. The study’s findings highlight the potential for inconsistency between respondents’ expressed preferences to receive specific types of results via specific methods and researchers’ unwillingness or inability to provide them. We present specific recommendations to shift the approach of new studies to investigate participants’ preferences for receiving research results.