Reducing LGBTQ+ adolescent mental health inequalities: a realist review of school-based interventions.

BACKGROUND: LGBTQ+ young people have elevated rates of poor mental health in comparison to their cisgender heterosexual peers. School environment is a key risk factor and consistently associated with negative mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ adolescents. AIMS: To examine how, why, for whom and in what context school-based interventions prevent or reduce mental health problems in LGBTQ+ adolescents. METHODS: A realist review methodology was utilised and focused on all types of school-based interventions and study designs. A Youth Advisory Group were part of the research team. Multiple search strategies were used to locate relevant evidence. Studies were subject to inclusion criteria and quality appraisal, and included studies were synthesised to produce a programme theory. Seventeen studies were included in the review. RESULTS: Eight intervention components were necessary to address LGBTQ+ pupils mental health: affirmative visual displays; external signposting to LGBTQ+ support; stand-alone input; school-based LGBTQ support groups; curriculum-based delivery; staff training; inclusion policies; trusted adult. Few school-based interventions for this population group were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The programme theory indicates that "to work" school-based interventions must have a "whole-school" approach that addresses specifically the dominant cis-heteronormative school environment and hence the marginalisation, silence, and victimisation that LGBTQ+ pupils can experience.

Understanding How School-Based Interventions Can Tackle LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Inequality: A Realist Approach.

Globally, research indicates that LGBTQ+ young people have elevated rates of poor mental health in comparison with their cisgender heterosexual peers. The school environment is a major risk factor and is consistently associated with negative mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ young people. The aim of this UK study was to develop a programme theory that explained how, why, for whom, and in what context school-based interventions prevent or reduce mental health problems in LGBTQ+ young people, through participation with key stakeholders. Online realist interviews were conducted in the UK with (1) LGBTQ+ young people aged between 13-18 years attending secondary schools (N = 10); (2) intervention practitioners (N = 9); and (3) school staff (N = 3). A realist retroductive data analysis strategy was employed to identify causal pathways across different interventions that improved mental health outcomes. The programme theory we produced explains how school-based interventions that directly tackle dominant cisgender and heterosexual norms can improve LGBTQ+ pupils' mental health. We found that context factors such as a 'whole-school approach' and 'collaborative leadership' were crucial to the delivery of successful interventions. Our theory posits three causal pathways that might improve mental health: (1) interventions that promote LGBTQ+ visibility and facilitate usualising, school belonging, and recognition; (2) interventions for talking and support that develop safety and coping; and (3) interventions that address institutional school culture (staff training and inclusion polices) that foster school belonging, empowerment, recognition, and safety. Our theoretical model suggests that providing a school environment that affirms and usualises LGBTQ+ identities and promotes school safety and belonging can improve mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ pupils.

Wilderness as therapeutic landscape in later life: Towards an understanding of place-based mechanisms for wellbeing through nature-adventure activity.

While there is considerable evidence that therapeutic landscapes have a positive impact on wellbeing, we know little about the mechanisms through which this impact occurs. In this paper we go some way toward addressing this gap. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 12 people aged between 52 and 75 years of age, who are engaged in nature-adventure activity in the UK, we focus on what they understand by 'wilderness'; their experiences of nature-adventure in wilderness settings; and the impact of these experiences on their wellbeing. Moving beyond the largely behavioural focus of laboratory-based studies prevalent within environmental psychology, we highlight the importance of understanding the role of the contextual in the therapeutic relationship. That is, how relational, embodied, social, lifecourse and/or cultural factors that are constitutive of wilderness environments impact wellbeing for those engaged in nature-adventure activity in later life. In doing so, we map out a working model of the mechanisms that impact wellbeing within this context. Our data suggest that there is no one single mechanism, rather we need to think about a range of mechanisms, often operating across a series of spectra (active/passive; safety/risk; alone/socially etc) and importantly, each are connected to place. Hence, we suggest, that where that activity takes place is instrumental for wellbeing.

Disgusting disruptions: Capturing the everyday experience and burden of managing gastrointestinal infections in the home.

Gastrointestinal (GI) infections exert a significant public health burden in the United Kingdom and the numbers of episodes are increasing. Younger children are considered particularly vulnerable to infection, and can experience 2-3 GI infections episodes per year, with consequences being more severe for more disadvantaged children, who are much more likely to be admitted to hospital. Few qualitative studies have explored the lived experience of GI infection in the community in the UK. The aim of the study reported here was to contribute to addressing this evidence gap, by examining the consequences of GI infection for 'normal' family life. Eighteen mothers with young children who had recently experienced a gastrointestinal infection were recruited from two socioeconomically contrasting neighbourhoods in North West of England. The findings demonstrated that GI infections were particularly disruptive: experienced as disgusting, laborious and stressful and significantly impacted normal family routines. Women felt burdened by the heavy physical and emotional demands of caring for a GI infection, resulting in feelings of isolation and insufficient support in their caring role from male partners. Tensions also arose from interactions with external community organisations, particularly in complying with their regulations on infection which often undermined caregivers knowledge and expertise of what was best for their children. This study challenges assumptions that managing GI infections in the home is unproblematic and experienced by caregivers as a 'minor ailment.' Infection control measures need to incorporate insights gleaned from the day-to-day realities of caring for sick children in the community.

Disseminating research findings using a massive online open course for maximising impact and developing recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND: Developing recommendations for how we deliver healthcare is often left to leading experts in a field. Findings from the Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) study, which aimed to identify best practice in integrated palliative care in cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure, led to recommendations developed through an expert consultation process. We also wanted to develop these recommendations further with participants who were largely clinicians and members of the public. METHODS: Results from the InSup-C study were disseminated through a three-week massive open online course (MOOC) which ran in 2016, 2017 and 2019. The first course helped develop the final recommendations, which were ranked by MOOC participants in the subsequent courses. MOOC participants were predominantly clinicians, but also academics and members of the public. They rated how important each recommendation was on a 9 point scale (9 most important). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the ratings. The results were compared to findings from the consultation. RESULTS: Five hundred fifteen completed the last part of the course where the recommendations were ranked, of which 195 (38%) completed the ratings. The top recommendations related to: need to expand palliative care to non-malignant conditions; palliative care needs to include different dimensions of care including physical, psychological and spiritual; policies and regulations assessments should be made regularly; palliative care integration should be mandatory; and there should be greater availability of medicines. These differed compared to the top ranked recommendations by the consultation panel in relation to the importance of leadership and policy making. This may indicate that clinicians are more focused on daily care rather than the (inter) national agenda. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst both sets of recommendations are important, our study shows that we need to include the views of clinicians and the public rather than rely upon leading expert opinion alone. To keep recommendations fresh we need both the input of clinicians, the public and experts. When disseminating findings, MOOCs offer a useful way to gain greater reach with clinicians and the public, and importantly could be a vehicle to validate recommendations made by leading expert panels.