Social media use among bisexuals and pansexuals: connection, harassment and mental health

Analysing survey data from 1,304 LGBTQ + young people in Australia collected in 2016, this paper considers key distinctions between the experiences of bisexual and pansexual participants, and lesbian and gay participants in relation to social media use and aspects of connection, harassment and mental health. Presenting quantitative data, illustrated by qualitative extracts, we found broad similarities in motivations for using social media and how participants connected to peers and communities. There were some statistically significant differences, however, in respondents' motivations for using social media and who they connected with on these platforms. Importantly, bisexual and pansexual participants reported more negative experiences of harassment and exclusion across all major social media platforms when compared to their lesbian and gay peers. Bisexual and pansexual respondents also reported poorer mental health experiences. These findings speak to the different impacts of discrimination and oppression that young people experience in everyday life. There is a need for focused attention on bisexual and pansexual young people in academic, policy and youth-work domains. Young people will benefit from more substantial school-based education on LGBTQ + identities - beyond the experiences of gay and lesbian people - to 'usualise' varieties of difference in gender and sexual identity.

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions

BACKGROUND

Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions.

METHODS

A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice.

RESULTS

We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

The 'Triple C' (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

Case study research and causal inference

Case study methodology is widely used in health research, but has had a marginal role in evaluative studies, given it is often assumed that case studies offer little for making causal inferences. We undertook a narrative review of examples of case study research from public health and health services evaluations, with a focus on interventions addressing health inequalities. We identified five types of contribution these case studies made to evidence for causal relationships. These contributions relate to: (1) evidence about system actors' own theories of causality; (2) demonstrative examples of causal relationships; (3) evidence about causal mechanisms; (4) evidence about the conditions under which causal mechanisms operate; and (5) inference about causality in complex systems. Case studies can and do contribute to understanding causal relationships. More transparency in the reporting of case studies would enhance their discoverability, and aid the development of a robust and pluralistic evidence base for public health and health services interventions. To strengthen the contribution that case studies make to that evidence base, researchers could: draw on wider methods from the political and social sciences, in particular on methods for robust analysis; carefully consider what population their case is a case 'of'; and explicate the rationale used for making causal inferences.

Fear of Heterosexism Among Sexuality and Gender Diverse Staff and Students

Fear of heterosexism-as distinct from actual experiences of heterosexism-plays a significant role in staff and students lives on campus. Ambient workplace heterosexism provides a context for staff and students about what to expect from their peers and colleagues, and shapes the daily activities of those who perceive heterosexism as a regulating force. In this article, we consider the psychometrics of the Fear of Heterosexism Scale (FoHS), which was integrated into a campus climate survey of Western Sydney University staff and students (N = 3,106; n = 412). This scale was considered in relation to a range of associated factors, including perceived safety on campus, bystander efficacy, responsibility to intervene, and awareness of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, asexual, and many other terms such as nonbinary and pansexual (LGBTIQA+) issues. In turn, the results of the FoHS are considered across a range of demographic factors such as gender, sexuality, role, dis/ability, and membership of campus-based support organizations. Supporting the findings from the initial operationalization of the FoHS by Fox and Asquith in 2018, this research identifies the consequences of fear of heterosexism on daily activities and engagement with study/work. Understanding the factors associated with fear of heterosexism is critical in creating more inclusive and respectful university environments.

The (failed) promise of multimorbidity: chronicity, biomedical categories, and public health

Multimorbidity has become an increasingly prominent lens through which public health focuses on the 'burden' of ill health in ageing populations, with the promise of a more upstream and holistic approach. We use a situational analysis (drawing on documentary analysis and interviews with service providers, policy actors and people living with multiple conditions) in south London, UK, to explore what this lens brings into focus, and what it obscures. Local initiatives mobilised the concept of multimorbidity in initiatives for integrating health care systems and for commissioning for prevention as well as care. However, as the latest of a series of historical attempts to address system fragmentation, these initiatives generated more complexity, and a system orientated to constant transformation, rather than repair or restoration. Service providers and patients continued to struggle to navigate the system. Dominant policy and practice narratives framed patient self-management as the primary route for addressing individualised risk factors on a trajectory to multimorbidity, whereas the narratives of those living with multiple conditions were more oriented to a relational model of health. The findings suggest possibilities and limitations for leveraging the concept of multimorbidity for public health. In this field, the promise arose from its potential to make spaces for a focus on populations, not patients with discrete diseases. Realising this promise, however, was limited by the inherent tensions of biomedical nosologies, which separate discrete diseases within individual bodies, and from epidemiological approaches that reify the socio-material contexts of failing health as risks for individuals.

The use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to address causality in complex systems: a systematic review of research on public health interventions

Background

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for identifying the configurations of conditions that lead to specific outcomes. Given its potential for providing evidence of causality in complex systems, QCA is increasingly used in evaluative research to examine the uptake or impacts of public health interventions. We map this emerging field, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of QCA approaches identified in published studies, and identify implications for future research and reporting.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English up to December 2019 that had used QCA methods to identify the conditions associated with the uptake and/or effectiveness of interventions for public health. Data relating to the interventions studied (settings/level of intervention/populations), methods (type of QCA, case level, source of data, other methods used) and reported strengths and weaknesses of QCA were extracted and synthesised narratively.

Results

The search identified 1384 papers, of which 27 (describing 26 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Interventions evaluated ranged across: nutrition/obesity (n = 8); physical activity (n = 4); health inequalities (n = 3); mental health (n = 2); community engagement (n = 3); chronic condition management (n = 3); vaccine adoption or implementation (n = 2); programme implementation (n = 3); breastfeeding (n = 2), and general population health (n = 1). The majority of studies (n = 24) were of interventions solely or predominantly in high income countries. Key strengths reported were that QCA provides a method for addressing causal complexity; and that it provides a systematic approach for understanding the mechanisms at work in implementation across contexts. Weaknesses reported related to data availability limitations, especially on ineffective interventions. The majority of papers demonstrated good knowledge of cases, and justification of case selection, but other criteria of methodological quality were less comprehensively met.

Conclusion

QCA is a promising approach for addressing the role of context in complex interventions, and for identifying causal configurations of conditions that predict implementation and/or outcomes when there is sufficiently detailed understanding of a series of comparable cases. As the use of QCA in evaluative health research increases, there may be a need to develop advice for public health researchers and journals on minimum criteria for quality and reporting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10926-2.

Ontologies of transition(s) in healthcare practice: examining the lived experiences and representations of transgender adults transitioning in healthcare

In this article, we examine the ways transitions are constructed and represented within healthcare settings vis-à-vis lived experiences. Drawing on in-depth interviews with transgender people and data from a document analysis, we examine how transgender peoples' experiences fit within conceptualisations of transition(s) in healthcare guidance documents used in England. We take up Pearce's ([2018]. Understanding trans health. Bristol: Policy Press) suggestion to (re)think trans beyond 'condition', and rather as 'movement', to view being trans as a social identity rather than a defect. Our findings show how trans people and transitions are imagined through often linear narratives of movement in/out of transition. Through this framing, fluidity and gender liminal spaces are made invisible, where health care is imagined for certain transitions but not others. Our analysis attends to tensions that emerge in the complexity of transition(s) as well as the intricate ways in which transgender people are responding to often restrictive ontologies of medical transition. As a conceptual tool, 'trans as movement' can be used to create space for more expansive ontologies of gender that confront the harms and restrictions imposed by the gender binary, and offer alternative ways of (re)imagining multiplicity in transition trajectories and futures for both those in healthcare delivery, and for trans patients.

Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges

BACKGROUND

The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The 'complexity turn' has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research-currently denigrated as poor evidence-is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear.

MAIN BODY

Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.

Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing recognition that health intervention research requires methods and approaches that can engage with the complexity of systems, interventions, and the relations between systems and interventions. One approach which shows promise to this end is qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which examines casual complexity across a medium to large number of cases (between 10 and 60+), whilst also being able to generalise across those cases. Increasingly, QCA is being adopted in public health intervention research. However, there is a limited understanding of how it is being adopted. This systematic review will address this gap, examining how it is being used to understand complex causation; for what settings, populations and interventions; and with which datasets to describe cases.

METHODS

We will include published and peer-reviewed studies of any public health intervention where the effects on population health, health equity, or intervention uptake are being evaluated. Electronic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (incorporating Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index), Microsoft Academic, and Google Scholar will be performed. This will be supplemented with reference citation tracking and personal contact with experts to identify any additional published studies. Search results will be single screened, with machine learning used to check these results, acting as a 'second screener'. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion. Data will be extracted from full texts of eligible studies, which will be assessed against inclusion criteria, and synthesised narratively, using thematic synthesis methods.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will provide an important map of the increasing use of QCA in public health intervention literature. This review will identify the current scope of research in this area, as well as assessing claims about the utility of the method for addressing complex causation in public health research. We will identify implications for better reporting of QCA methods in public health research and for reporting of case studies such that they can be used in future QCA studies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019131910.

The Daily Mile as a public health intervention: a rapid ethnographic assessment of uptake and implementation in South London, UK

Background

Existing evidence identifies health benefits for children of additional daily physical activity (PA) on a range of cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes. The Daily Mile (TDM) is a popular scheme designed to increase children’s PA within the school day. Emerging evidence indicates that participation in TDM can increase children’s PA, reduce sedentarism and reduce skinfold measures. However, little is known about the potential effects of TDM as a public health intervention, and the benefits and disbenefits that might flow from wider implementation in ‘real world’ settings.

Methods

We aimed to identify how TDM is being implemented in a naturalistic setting, and what implications this has for its potential impact on population health. We undertook a rapid ethnographic assessment of uptake and implementation in Lewisham, south London. Data included interviews (n = 22) and focus groups (n = 11) with stakeholders; observations of implementation in 12 classes; and analysis of routine data sources to identify school level factors associated with uptake.

Results

Of the 69 primary schools in one borough, 33 (48%) had adopted TDM by September 2018. There were no significant differences between adopters and non-adopters in mean school population size (means 377 vs 397, P = 0.70), mean percentage of children eligible for free school meals (16.2 vs 14.3%, P = 0.39), or mean percentage of children from Black and Minority Ethnic populations (76.3 vs 78.2%, P = 0.41). Addressing obesity was a key incentive for adoption, although a range of health and educational benefits were also hypothesised to accrue from participation. Mapping TDM to the TIDierR-PHP checklist to describe the intervention in practice identified that considerable adaption happened at the level of borough, school, class and pupil. Population health effects are likely to be influenced by the interaction of intervention and context at each of these levels.

Conclusions

Examining TDM in ‘real world’ settings surfaces adaptions and variations in implementation. This has implications for the likely effects of TDM, and points more broadly to an urgent need for more appropriate methods for evaluating public health impact and implementation in complex contexts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7511-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.