Engaging people with lived experiences on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of the research process to facilitate social change and increase research relevance. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a CBPR tool in which individuals with lived experience and community organisations are integrated into the research process and ensure the work aligns with community priorities. We seek to (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs and (2) identify the scope of literature on minimising power dynamics between organisations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, informed by Levac et al, and will be reported using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Grey literature references and reference lists of included articles published between 1 January 1990 and 30 March 2023 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts will be decided by consensus or a third reviewer. Thematic analysis will be applied in three phases: open coding, axial coding and abstraction. Extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. At this time, a preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics approval is not required for this review. Review findings will inform ongoing and future CBPR community advisory board dynamics. REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QF5D3).

Family and community resilience: a Photovoice study.

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), in combination with adverse community environments, can result in traumatic stress reactions, increasing a person's risk for chronic physical and mental health conditions. Family resilience refers to the ability of families to withstand and rebound from adversity; it involves coping with disruptions as well as positive growth in the face of sudden or challenging life events, trauma, or adversities. This study aimed to identify factors contributing to family and community resilience from the perspective of families who self-identified as having a history of adversity and being resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study used Photovoice, a visual participatory research method which asks participants to take photographs to illustrate their responses to a research question. Participants consisted of a maximum variation sample of families who demonstrated family level resilience in the context of the pair of ACEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Family members were asked to collect approximately five images or videos that illustrated the facilitators and barriers to well-being for their family in their community. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using the SHOWeD framework to allow participants to share and elucidate the meaning of their photos. Using thematic analysis, two researchers then independently completed line-by-line coding of interview transcripts before collaborating to develop consensus regarding key themes and interpretations. RESULTS: Nine families were enrolled in the study. We identified five main themes that enhanced family resilience: (1) social support networks; (2) factors fostering children's development; (3) access and connection to nature; (4) having a space of one's own; and (5) access to social services and community resources. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of additional stresses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, resilient behaviours and strategies for families were identified. The creation or development of networks of intra- and inter-community bonds; the promotion of accessible parenting, housing, and other social services; and the conservation and expansion of natural environments may support resilience and health.

The influence of occupation on lumbar sagittal motion and posture.

The aim of this study was to determine whether sheep shearers have clinically hypothesized adaptive postural and sagittal mobility parameters of the lumbar spine and pelvis. Sixty-four shearers and 64 non-shearers, matched by age and anthropometry and surveyed for present and previous low back pain, participated in a study to determine the effects of occupation on sagittal spinal motion and posture. Lumbar and hip mobility measurements were made with a geometric CAD analysis of lateral photographs using surface reflective markers. Sagittal range of motion demonstrated similar ranges of lumbar flexion between the two groups; however, there was a marked gain in hip flexion in the shearers as well as a marked loss of lumbar extension. The shearers also demonstrated a more lordotic lower lumbar curvature compensated by a flatter (less kyphotic) mid to lower thoracic region. Shearers appear to lose lumbar extension, gain hip flexion and develop an adaptive normal stance. This adaptation appears to be independent of previous or current back pain. Conversely, lumbar extension loss in non-shearers correlates with previous back injury. A stepwise linear regression of all participants indicated that the occupation is the predominant influence on motion and posture followed by age. The implications are one of structural adaptation in this occupational group that does not appear to be correlated with back pain.

LH levels in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: have modern assays made them irrelevant?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether using newer monoclonal rather than polyclonal assays for measuring luteinising hormone (LH) alters the predictive value of LH and LH/follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ratios for polycystic ovarian syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Fertility and Reproductive Endocrinology Clinic within a New Zealand Teaching hospital. POPULATION: Seventy-eight women presenting with oligomenorrhoea or hirsutism and polycystic ovaries on pelvic ultrasound and 59 volunteer controls with ultrasonically normal ovaries and a regular menstrual cycle. METHODS: Serum LH concentrations were measured using a polyclonal radio-immunoassay (Amerlex-M, Johnson & Johnson) and two monoclonal immunometric assays (Immulite, DPC; Cobas Core, Hoffman La Roche). The proportion of women with an elevated serum LH concentration in each group was calculated using both current local laboratory reference intervals and a new reference range derived from our control group. The LH/FSH ratios for women in both groups were also calculated using the three different LH assays. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: LH concentrations and LH:FSH ratios measured using polyclonal and monoclonal immunoassays. RESULTS: Using the local laboratory normal range, a significantly higher proportion of women had an elevated LH when measured with a polyclonal assay (23.1%) than when measured with a monoclonal assay (12.8% Core, 6.4% Immulite) (P < 0.05). LH/FSH ratios were significantly lower when monoclonal assay was used and receiver-operator characteristic curves suggest that LH/FSH ratios of 1 or lower provide the most reliable separation of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome from controls when these assays are used. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware that the use of monoclonal LH assays will result in significantly lower measured LH levels and LH/FSH ratios in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome than previously used polyclonal assays. Account should be taken of the assay type used, when using endocrinological parameters in the diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome, or the identification of women who have LH hypersecretion.