BackgroundIt is well established that the incidence, prevalence and presentation of mental disorders differ by gender, ethnicity and age, and there is evidence that there is also differential representation in mental health research by these characteristics. The aim of this paper is to a) review the current literature on the nature of barriers to participation in mental health research, with particular reference to gender, age and ethnicity; b) review the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to overcome these barriers.MethodStudies published up to December 2008 were identified using MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE using relevant mesh headings and keywords.ResultsForty-nine papers were identified. There was evidence of a wide range of barriers including transportation difficulties, distrust and suspicion of researchers, and the stigma attached to mental illness. Strategies to overcome these barriers included the use of bilingual staff, assistance with travel, avoiding the use of stigmatising language in marketing material and a focus on education about the disorder under investigation. There were very few evaluations of such strategies, but there was evidence that ethnically matching recruiters to potential participants did not improve recruitment rates. Educational strategies were helpful and increased recruitment.ConclusionMental health researchers should consider including caregivers in recruitment procedures where possible, provide clear descriptions of study aims and describe the representativeness of their sample when reporting study results. Studies that systematically investigate strategies to overcome barriers to recruitment are needed.

Research on men's health has predominantly focussed on links between 'hegemonic' masculinities (e.g. perceived invulnerability) and health-averse practices (e.g. high fat diets). However, it seems reasonable to assume that not all men adopt conventional 'unhealthy' masculine positions, so it is important to study those men who are engaged in healthy practices to see how masculinity is constructed in this context. The research reported here derives from an interview study with men categorised as pursuing health-promoting lifestyles (regular exercise, no/low alcohol intake etc.). The focus is on how these apparently 'healthy' men (n = 10) account for their health-promoting practices, with a particular focus on the role of masculinities in framing these practices. Following intensive analysis of the interview transcripts drawing upon elements of discourse analysis, we identify a variety of accounts used by the men to frame their health-promoting practices. For example, all the men disavowed a direct interest in talking/thinking about health, construed as excessive and feminine, and instead justified their practices variously in terms of action-orientation, sporting targets, appearance concerns and being autonomous. These findings are discussed with respect to the relationships between masculinities and health, and implications for health promotion work with men are discussed.

Randomised control trial of a smoking cessation intervention directed at men whose partners are pregnant.

Background Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to “shield” to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed. Methods and findings We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of −0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI −2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI −1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI −0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months −0.87 (95% CI −1.56 to −0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (−1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (−1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (−4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (−4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (−2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (−2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness. Conclusions In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). Trial registration ISRCTN94091479.

Purpose: Using a theory-led action research process test applicability of humanizing care theory to better understand what matters to people and assess how the process can improve human dimensions of health care services. Consideration of the value of this process to guide enhancements in humanly sensitive care and investigate transferable benefits of the participatory strategy for improving human dimensions of health care services. Methods: Action research with service users, practitioners and academics, with participatory processes led through the application of theory via a novel Humanizing Care Framework in two diverse clinical settings. Results: Participants engaged in a theory-led participatory process, understood and valued the framework seeing how it relates to own experiences. Comparative analysis of settings identified transferable processes with potential to enhance human dimensions of care more generally. We offer transferable strategy with contextualized practical details of humanizing processes and outcomes that can contribute to portable pathways to enhance dignity in care through application of humanizing care theory in practice. Conclusion: The theoretical framework is a feasible and effective guide to enhance human dimensions of care. Our rigorous participative process facilitates sharing of patient and staff experience, sensitizing practitioners' understandings and helping develop new ways of providing theoretically robust person-centred care based on lifeworld approaches.