Search results

Many adults fail to achieve sufficient moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). The purpose of this paper is to understand how workplaces most effectively promote physical activity for the benefit of public health.

Data were collected via two online surveys. First, 3,360 adults employed at 308 workplaces across England self-reported their MVPA, activity status at work and frequency of journeys made through active commuting. From this sample, 588 participants reported on the policies and practices used in their workplace to promote physical activity. Factor and cluster analysis identified common practice. Regression models examined the association between the workplace factors and engagement in physical activity behaviours.

Five factors emerged: targeting active travel, availability of information about physical activity outside the workplace, facilities and onsite opportunities, sedentary behaviour, and information about physical activity within the workplace. Further, five clusters were identified to illustrate how the factors are typically being utilised by workplaces across England. Commonly used practices related to promoting active travel, reducing sedentary behaviour and the provision of information but these practices were not associated with meeting MVPA guidelines. The provision of facilities and onsite exercise classes was associated with the most positive physical activity behaviour outcomes; however, these structures were rarely evident in workplaces.

Previous research has identified a number of efficacious actions for promoting physical activity in the workplace, however, research investigating which of these are likely to be acceptable to worksites is limited. The present study is the first to combine these two important aspects. Five common profiles of promoting physical activity in worksites across England were identified and related to physical activity outcomes. Guidance is given to workplace managers to enable them to maximise the resources they have for the greatest gains in employee health. Where feasible, facilities, and classes should be provided to achieve the most positive outcomes.

This paper aims to explore the learning needs of general practitioners (GPs) involved in commissioning mental health provision in England, and offer an evaluation of a leadership and commissioning skills development programme for Mental Health Commissioners.

Retrospective mixed method, including online mixed method survey, rating participants’ knowledge, skills, abilities, semi-structured telephone interviews and third-party questionnaires were used. Results were analysed for significant differences using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. Open-ended responses and interview transcripts were analysed thematically.

Indicative results showed that participants perceived significant impacts in ability across eight key question groups evaluated. Differences were found between the perceived and observed impact in relation to technical areas covered within the programme which were perceived as the highest scoring impacts by participants.

The indicative results show a positive impact on practice has been both perceived and observed. Findings illustrate the value of this development programme on both the personal development of GP Mental Health Commissioners and commissioning practice. Although the findings of this evaluation increase understanding in relation to an important and topical area, larger scale, prospective evaluations are required. Impact evaluations could be embedded within future programmes to encourage higher participant and third-party engagement. Future evaluations would benefit from collection and analysis of attendance data. Further research could involve patient, service user and carer perspectives on mental health commissioning.

Results of this evaluation could inform the development of future learning programmes for mental health commissioners as part of a national approach to improve mental health provision.

The purpose of this paper is to explore different health care professionals’ discourse about privacy – its definition and importance in health care, and its role in their day-to-day work. Professionals’ discourse about privacy reveals how new technologies and laws challenge existing practices of information control within and between professional groups in health care, with implications not only for patient privacy, but also for the role of information control in professions more generally.

The authors conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with n=83 doctors, nurses, and health information professionals in two academic medical centers and one veteran’s administration hospital/clinic in the Northeastern USA. Interview responses were qualitatively coded for themes and patterns across groups were identified.

The health care providers and the authors studied actively sought to uphold the protection (and control) of patient information through professional ethics and practices, as well as through the use of technologies and compliance with legal regulations. They used discourses of professionalism, as well as of law and technology, to sometimes accept and sometimes resist changes to practice required in the changing technological and legal context of health care. The authors found differences across professional groups; for some, protection of patient information is part of core professional ethics, while for others it is simply part of their occupational work, aligned with organizational interests.

This qualitative study of physicians, nurses, and health information professionals revealed some differences in views and practices for protecting patient information in the changing technological and legal context of health care that suggest some professional groups (doctors) may be more likely to resist such changes and others (health information professionals) will actively adopt them.

New technologies and regulations are changing how information is used in health care delivery, challenging professional practices for the control of patient information that may change the value or meaning of medical records for different professional groups.

Qualitative findings suggest that professional groups in health care vary in the extent of information control they have, as well in how they view such control. Some groups may be more likely to (be able to) resist changes in the professional control of information that stem from new technologies or regulatory policies. Some professionals recognize that new IT systems and regulations challenge existing social control of information in health care, with the potential to undermine (or possibly bolster) professional self-control for some but not necessarily all occupational groups.