Ethical guidance for conducting health research with online communities: A scoping review of existing guidance.

Online research methods have grown in popularity due in part to the globalised and far-reaching nature of the internet but also linked to the Covid-19 pandemic whereby restrictions to travel and face to face contact necessitated a shift in methods of research recruitment and data collection. Ethical guidance exists to support researchers in conducting online research, however this is lacking within health fields. This scoping review aims to synthesise formal ethical guidance for applying online methods within health research as well as provide examples of where guidance has been used. A systematic search of literature was conducted, restricted to English language records between 2013 and 2022. Eligibility focused on whether the records were providing ethical guidance or recommendations, were situated or relevant to health disciplines, and involved the use or discussion of online research methods. Following exclusion of ineligible records and duplicate removal, three organisational ethical guidance and 24 research papers were charted and thematically analysed. Four key themes were identified within the guidance documents, 1) consent, 2) confidentiality and privacy, 3) protecting participants from harm and 4) protecting researchers from harm with the research papers describing additional context and understanding around these issues. The review identified that there are currently no specific guidelines aimed at health researchers, with the most cited guidance coming from broader methodological perspectives and disciplines or auxiliary fields. All guidance discussed each of the four key themes within the wider context of sensitive topics and vulnerable populations, areas and issues which are often prominent within health research thus highlighting the need for unifying guidance specific for health researchers. Further research should aim to understand better how online health studies apply ethical principles, to support in informing gaps across both research and guidance.

The Mentors in Violence Prevention programme: impact on students' knowledge and attitudes related to violence, prejudice, and abuse, and willingness to intervene as a bystander in secondary schools in England.

BACKGROUND: Violence is a leading cause of death and disability for young people and has serious impacts on prospects across the lifecourse. The education sector is a crucial setting for preventing youth violence through incorporating programmes that address attitudes and behaviours. The Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) programme aims to change harmful attitudes and norms, and increase non-violent bystander intervention, through a peer mentoring approach. To date there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention in UK school settings. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of the programme on students' attitudes and knowledge related to violence prevention. METHODS: The study employed a mixed methods design. Pre and post surveys measured changes in students' (aged 11-18) attitudes and knowledge related to violence prevention and bystander behaviour, gender stereotyping, acceptability of violence, and perceptions of others' willingness to intervene. Interviews/focus groups with programme delivers and students, and anonymised programme data were used to explore and supplement survey findings. RESULTS: Overall, perceptions of the programme content and delivery were positive. Several beneficial impacts of the programme were found for mentors (students delivering the programme), including significant positive changes on measures of knowledge and attitudes towards violence prevention and the bystander approach, acceptability of violence perpetration, and perceptions of other students' willingness to intervene (effect sizes were small-medium). However, the study found no significant change on any of the outcomes amongst mentees (younger students receiving the programme from mentors). Despite this, qualitative evidence suggested mentees enjoyed the content of the programme and the peer-led delivery, and this built relationships with older students. Qualitative evidence also identified additional benefits of the programme for mentors, including leadership and communication skills, and increased confidence and supportive relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this study suggests MVP is effective as a targeted programme for mentors, but no significant evidence was found to demonstrate its effectiveness as a universal bystander and violence prevention programme for mentees. Whilst further research with more robust study design is needed, developing mentors as leaders in violence prevention is a valuable impact of the programme in its own right.

Holidays, celebrations, and commiserations: measuring drinking during feasting and fasting to improve national and individual estimates of alcohol consumption.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measures of alcohol consumption are critical in assessing health harms caused by alcohol. In many countries, there are large discrepancies between survey-based measures of consumption and those based on alcohol sales. In England, surveys measuring typical alcohol consumption account for only around 60% of alcohol sold. Here, using a national survey, we measure both typical drinking and atypical/special occasion drinking (i.e., feasting and fasting) in order to develop more complete measures of alcohol consumption. METHODS: A national random probability telephone survey was implemented (May 2013 to April 2014). Inclusion criteria were resident in England and aged 16 years or over. Respondents (n = 6,085) provided information on typical drinking (amounts per day, drinking frequency) and changes in consumption associated with routine atypical days (e.g., Friday nights) and special dinking periods (e.g., holidays) and events (e.g., weddings). Generalized linear modelling was used to identify additional alcohol consumption associated with atypical/special occasion drinking by age, sex, and typical drinking level. RESULTS: Accounting for atypical/special occasion drinking added more than 120 million UK units of alcohol/week (~12 million bottles of wine) to population alcohol consumption in England. The greatest impact was seen among 25- to 34-year-olds with the highest typical consumption, where atypical/special occasions added approximately 18 units/week (144 g) for both sexes. Those reporting the lowest typical consumption (≤1 unit/week) showed large relative increases in consumption (209.3%) with most drinking associated with special occasions. In some demographics, adjusting for special occasions resulted in overall reductions in annual consumption (e.g., females, 65 to 74 years in the highest typical drinking category). CONCLUSIONS: Typical drinking alone can be a poor proxy for actual alcohol consumption. Accounting for atypical/special occasion drinking fills 41.6% of the gap between surveyed consumption and national sales in England. These additional units are inevitably linked to increases in lifetime risk of alcohol-related disease and injury, particularly as special occasions often constitute heavy drinking episodes. Better population measures of celebratory, festival, and holiday drinking are required in national surveys in order to adequately measure both alcohol consumption and the health harms associated with special occasion drinking.

Relationship between alcohol-attributable disease and socioeconomic status, and the role of alcohol consumption in this relationship: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies show that alcohol consumption appears to have a disproportionate impact on people of low socioeconomic status. Further exploration of the relationship between alcohol consumption, socioeconomic status and the development of chronic alcohol-attributable diseases is therefore important to inform the development of effective public health programmes. METHODS: We used systematic review methodology to identify published studies of the association between socioeconomic factors and mortality and morbidity for alcohol-attributable conditions. To attempt to quantify differences in the impact of alcohol consumption for each condition, stratified by SES, we (i) investigated the relationship between SES and risk of mortality or morbidity for each alcohol-attributable condition, and (ii) where, feasible explored alcohol consumption as a mediating or interacting variable in this relationship. RESULTS: We identified differing relationships between a range of alcohol-attributable conditions and socioeconomic indicators. Pooled analyses showed that low, relative to high socioeconomic status, was associated with an increased risk of head and neck cancer and stroke, and in individual studies, with hypertension and liver disease. Conversely, risk of female breast cancer tended to be associated with higher socioeconomic status. These findings were attenuated but held when adjusted for a number of known risk factors and other potential confounding factors. A key finding was the lack of studies that have explored the interaction between alcohol-attributable disease, socioeconomic status and alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations to our review, we have described relationships between socioeconomic status and a range of alcohol-attributable conditions, and explored the mediating and interacting effects of alcohol consumption where feasible. However, further research is needed to better characterise the relationship between socioeconomic status alcohol consumption and alcohol-attributable disease risk so as to gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and pathways that influence the differential risk in harm between people of low and high socioeconomic status.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase hepatitis C testing uptake among high-risk groups: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs are at the greatest risk of acquiring hepatitis C virus infection in many high-income countries, including those in Europe. Our review examined the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing hepatitis C virus testing uptake. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of controlled studies. Searches of 13 databases were supplemented with citation searching, and manual searches of reference lists and websites. Studies of interventions that aimed to increase testing uptake among high-risk groups were included. Testing uptake was our primary outcome measure of interest and secondary outcomes were engagement in follow-up services and treatment. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Eight controlled studies were included. Three studies examined interventions in primary care; one examined dried blood spot testing as an alternative method of testing, and two examined outreach provision. Two further studies examined interventions to improve hepatitis C management. Targeted case finding in primary care, support and training for primary care practitioners, offering alternative testing and provision of outreach testing all increased uptake of testing; however, intervention effects were variable. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the available studies suggests that increases in testing uptake can be achieved. Careful attention needs to be paid to the resource implications associated with implementation of interventions in primary care settings and also of the potential for interventions to improve outcomes once a positive diagnosis has been made. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention approaches examined in this review is required.

Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Globally, at least 93 million children have moderate or severe disability. Children with disabilities are thought to have a substantially greater risk of being victims of violence than are their non-disabled peers. Establishment of reliable estimates of the scale of the problem is an essential first step in the development of effective prevention programmes. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise evidence for the prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 12 electronic databases to identify cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies reported between Jan 1, 1990, and Aug 17, 2010, with estimates of prevalence of violence against children (aged ≤18 years) with disabilities or their risk of being victims of violence compared with children without disabilities. FINDINGS: 17 studies were selected from 10,663 references. Reports of 16 studies provided data suitable for meta-analysis of prevalence and 11 for risk. Pooled prevalence estimates were 26·7% (95% CI 13·8-42·1) for combined violence measures, 20·4% (13·4-28·5) for physical violence, and 13·7% (9·2-18·9) for sexual violence. Odds ratios for pooled risk estimates were 3·68 (2·56-5·29) for combined violence measures, 3·56 (2·80-4·52) for physical violence, and 2·88 (2·24-3·69) for sexual violence. Huge heterogeneity was identified across most estimates (I(2)>75%). Variations were not consistently explained with meta-regression analysis of the characteristics of the studies. INTERPRETATION: The results of this systematic review confirm that children with disabilities are more likely to be victims of violence than are their peers who are not disabled. However, the continued scarcity of robust evidence, due to a lack of well designed research studies, poor standards of measurement of disability and violence, and insufficient assessment of whether violence precedes the development of disability, leaves gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. FUNDING: WHO Department of Violence and Injury Prevention and Disability.

Prevalence and risk of violence against adults with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: About 15% of adults worldwide have a disability. These individuals are frequently reported to be at increased risk of violence, yet quantitative syntheses of studies of this issue are scarce. We aimed to quantify violence against adults with disabilities. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 12 electronic databases to identify primary research studies published between Jan 1, 1990, and Aug 17, 2010, reporting prevalence estimates of violence against adults (aged mainly ≥18 years) with disabilities, or their risk of violence compared with non-disabled adults. We included only studies reporting violence occurring within the 12 months before the study. We assessed studies with six core quality criteria, and pooled data for analysis. FINDINGS: Of 10,663 references initially identified, 26 were eligible for inclusion, with data for 21,557 individuals with disabilities. 21 studies provided data suitable for meta-analysis of prevalence of violence, and ten for meta-analysis of risks of violence. Pooled prevalence of any (physical, sexual, or intimate partner) recent violence was 24·3% (95% CI 18·3-31·0) in people with mental illnesses, 6·1% (2·5-11·1) in those with intellectual impairments, and 3·2% (2·5-4·1) in those with non-specific impairments. We identified substantial heterogeneity in most prevalence estimates (I(2) >75%). We noted large uncertainty around pooled risk estimates. Pooled crude odds ratios for the risk of violence in disabled compared with non-disabled individuals were 1·50 (95% CI 1·09-2·05) for all studies combined, 1·31 (0·93-1·84) for people with non-specific impairments, 1·60 (1·05-2·45) for people with intellectual impairments, and 3·86 (0·91-16·43) for those with mental illnesses. INTERPRETATION: Adults with disabilities are at a higher risk of violence than are non-disabled adults, and those with mental illnesses could be particularly vulnerable. However, available studies have methodological weaknesses and gaps exist in the types of disability and violence they address. Robust studies are absent for most regions of the world, particularly low-income and middle-income countries. FUNDING: WHO Department of Violence and Injury Prevention and Disability.