Search results

Incorporating the voice of older adults into all phases of research has the potential to make findings more relevant and impactful. Beyond the direct benefit, researchers have an ethical obligation to elicit the contributions of older adults into their work. Recently, organizations such as the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute in the United States, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the National Institute of Health Research in the United Kingdom have stepped up to accelerate the incorporation of public and patient voice into research, resulting in innovative engagement strategies for involving stakeholders, including older adults in research. However, those who are physically and mentally capable are more often included in research than those with multiple chronic conditions or living with disabilities. The ability to incorporate older adult voice into research is possible and has provided tangible benefits to researchers. Older adults have expertise based on their lived experiences that can provide invaluable insights on how to conduct research with real-world applications. Programmes such as the Bureau of Sages have worked to implement and disseminate best practices and guidelines for incorporating the voice of older adults into research. Principles for engaging older adults include flexibility, mutual engagement of the older adult and the researcher, time for rapport building and partner development and increased focus on accessibility. By working to understand these principles and overcome challenges to incorporating older adult voice into research, research will be more meaningful and relevant to the public, and will inherently include a focus on translation of research into practice.

Research ethics and integrity stipulates that research must be conducted with responsibility towards the research community and should benefit the intended population. This chapter will share insights from an ongoing research programme to reduce family conflict in the context of dementia care while discussing the accompanying ethical considerations. Research into dementia care has primarily focused on improving outcomes for the care dyad, leaving the influence and input of the wider family unit under investigated. Family conflict can detrimentally impact the quality of care provided and leave caregivers vulnerable to psychosocial difficulties. Family conflict occurs in the context of dementia care but there is little research on how to reduce, or prevent, such conflict occurring. In this research programme, a systematic review investigated the effectiveness of interventions that include the wider family unit to reduce family conflict; only one study was included which evidenced the lack of interventions in this area. A qualitative scoping review was then conducted to explore the lived experiences of caregiving families with experience of family conflict and reported solutions. It was found that conflict occurred due to factors including care decisions and role transitions which impacted relationships and affected care provision. Solutions to conflict were less often reported, indicating an important gap in the literature. Interviews with Alzheimer's Society staff and volunteers revealed that stigma and denial surrounding dementia were prevalent, and families were often reluctant to seek external help. This research programme is currently establishing public patient involvement (PPI) to develop the research methodology and interview questions for people with dementia (PWD) and their family caregivers to explore their lived experiences and potential solutions to family conflict. To conclude, this research programme will propose a family-focused intervention aimed at systemic family conflict for those caring for someone with dementia.

Individuals who are exploited and manipulated by criminal gangs are often wrongly labelled, stereotyped, and blamed (to varying levels) for the vulnerable positions that they find themselves in. Individuals who perpetrate violence towards others have often also been victims of violence and crime themselves. Teaching about these groups and trying to represent their position and experiences is a difficult and sensitive area. Building on current research, experiences of teaching professionals and students about the exploitation of marginalised groups, serious violence, and crime during COVID-19, are reflected upon. In doing so, what is important for students to understand about marganilised groups is set out, and recommendations for improvements to teaching practice are discussed. Firstly, it is argued that where educators seek to help students learn about marginalised groups, there needs to be preparation to put the work in at the front end and reflect on their own assumptions, beliefs and learning needs. Secondly, they also need to think about the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ (Seddon, 2005) aspects of individual agency and to be as authentic as they can to the lived experiences of marginalised communities as community members engage in types of behaviours and access services. Finally, it is then important for them to open up opportunities for students to reflect on the more detailed aspects and wider social, economic, and structural factors that marginalised communities face as they endeavour to articulate their own needs in society.

Despite increasingly persuasive women-focused marketing of gambling products, there has only been limited investigation around women sports betting. Men remain the focus of much of the conversation about sports betting as they have generally been found to be the most active sports bettors and the most at risk of experiencing harms associated with their behaviour. This chapter aims to fill this gap by exploring the characteristics of young women sports bettors in the United Kingdom and the relationship between sports betting and the experience of gambling harms. To do this, we created two models of analysis. Our analysis is based on data from the first wave (2019) of the Emerging Adults Gambling Survey (EAGS) dataset (n = 3,549). The EAGS is a non-probability longitudinal survey that includes individuals between the ages of 16 and 24 who were residents in Britain at the time of data collection. Firstly, we examined the associations between women sports bettors and several factors identified as important predictors of sports betting. Secondly, we sought to understand the relationship between women's sports betting and the harms associated with this activity. From these models, we found that women's sports betting was most reliably predicted according to fandom and peer influence. We also found that women sports bettors were more at risk of experiencing harms associated with difficulties with family and friends than women gamblers using other products.

In this chapter, we consider collaborative models of engaged research in comparison to models of team science that include persons with lived experience of the topic area as team members. ‘Co-led’, ‘co-design’ and ‘co-research’ are all terms used in the literature with distinct, but not precise, definitions and approaches. These collaborative models tend to describe methods that allow those with lived experience to be treated differently than other academic members of the research team. Power imbalances between those with lived experiences and researchers persist in such models, in spite of researcher efforts. For example, persons with lived experience are often described as being compensated with gift cards which may be welcomed but can be perceived as diminishing their role and contribution. In contrast, participatory team science involves persons with lived experience as full members of the research team. In the model that we propose, power is balanced through mutual planning and consensus-based decision-making. We contend that using participatory team science advances research through egalitarian consideration of team members' perspectives of the research problem and the designs necessary to knowledge development.

This introductory chapter traces some of the impact COVID-19 has had on education in different global contexts. It traces the history of the Universitas 21 Schools of Education Deans Group and its Forum for International Networking in Education and sets the context for the subsequent contributions in this book. It provides points of reflection for scholars and institutions as they traverse through the ongoing challenges of the pandemic.

Research with vulnerable groups is crucial to get their input into public policy design that will directly impact on them. However, there are many methodological and ethical challenges involved in encouraging participation from groups with a wide range of intellectual, cognitive and physical capacities while ensuring that the rights and well-being of participants are protected. Rather than exploring ethical theories, this chapter is a case study describing the practical ethical considerations that were involved in designing and holding a series of focus groups with adult health and social care service users from vulnerable cohorts. It is based on a series of focus groups which the Institute of Public Health (IPH) held with specified cohorts as part of a policy development process on adult safeguarding for the Department of Health (DOH) in Ireland. The four cohorts were people with intellectual disability, cognitive impairments, significant mental health challenges and nursing home residents. This chapter does not describe the findings of the focus groups but outlines the ethical and methodological considerations that arose in designing and conducting this research, and the practical ethical safeguards employed to mitigate risk and comply with Irish and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation governing health research. It outlines the ethical issues around protecting confidentiality and using incentives to encourage participation, how individuals' capacity to give informed consent was maximized, the risk-assessment and mitigation procedures used to prevent harms arising and the measures put in place to provide follow-up emotional support to participants.