Tagged / faculty of health and social sciences

BU’s ECR- Dr Rejoice Chipuriro awarded NIHR Clinical Research Network Wessex grant to work with underserved communities in health and social care

Awarded & submitted bids, NHS

Dr Rejoice Chipuriro a Post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Social Science and Social Work has been awarded a grant from the NIHR Clinical Research Network Wessex. The grant is aimed at generating new insights into asylums seekers’ lived experiences with community based mental health care support services. This study involves partnership between Bournemouth University and Vita Nova- a community arts organisation that supports people in recovery from addiction. Vita Nova works in a holistic way to support members with their ongoing recovery programs which helps to avoid relapse back into treatment centres, mental health institutions or prison.

In recent years Vita Nova has worked with other underserved communities including asylum seekers, for example the Refugee Nativity last Christmas with local asylum seekers which brought communities together and raised awareness of the current refugee crisis. Vita Nova uses creativity to process trauma as a form of art therapy. Asylum seekers will be supported by Vita Nova to co-produce drama and photography for public exhibition to connect with mental health service in community, as well as the public, to dispel stigma around mental health and marginalisation of asylum seekers. The photo exhibition will also be co-designed with asylum seekers as a way for participants to share about their lived experiences, and break taboos about mental health.

 

Talking about this new research Dr Rejoice Chipuriro shared the following, ‘Mental health is a priority area for the NHS. Asylum seekers are listed by the NIHR as an underserved group in health research which is why this research seeks to generate new knowledge about mental health which is co-produced with asylum seekers.’

Michael Armstrong the Creative Producer at Vita Nova had this to share , ‘ As we step into a new chapter, we’re reflecting on the journey that brought us here. Rooted in the centre of Boscombe, our charity has dedicated itself to empowering community members and artists alike for almost 25 years. Through a rich tapestry of events and projects, we’ve woven connections, shared stories, and nurtured creativity. The partnership with Bournemouth University advances our approach to evaluation and how we can capture the voices of some of the most vulnerable people in our wonderful community.’

Sharon Coyne, Artistic Director at Vita Nova says ‘our partnership with Bournemouth University really helps us think differently about how we communicate the experience of our wonderful members and engage new partners and (hopefully) new funders’.

Congratulations Rejoice!

Dorset Serious Crime Project

Dorset Community Action has been commissioned by the Home Office to carry out interviews in support of their Serious Crime Project.

The aim is that this project will add valuable insight and context to wider research and analysis being undertaken to inform a local strategic needs assessment, and ultimately the Dorset Serious Violence Strategy.

The intended outcome from these case studies of victim/survivors of serious violence is to gain a greater understanding of their individual situations:

·       Were there certain conditions in place at the time the serious violence happened.

·       Was the serious violence a pattern of behaviour, possibly an escalation of behaviour and offending.

·       How had being a victim of serious violence impacted on the individual emotionally and physically.

·       What pre- and post-offence interventions from services were available, accepted, required;

(or what wasn’t available but needed/wanted)

·       How has the overall experience influenced both current and future behaviour.

The participants need to be Dorset residents and over 18.

Please, find more information in the flyer here: Serious Crime Request Flier

All final data will be shared with all stakeholders involved in the project.

Any support you can offer with this project will be very much appreciated.

Sociology journal seeks second book review editor

open access, Publishing, writing

The British Sociological Society’s (BSA) journal Sociological Research Online is seeking a new second book review editor.  All Editors, including the book review editor, have to be BSA members throughout their term of office and previous engagement with the BSA is desirable.  The term of office is three years with the possibility of an extension, starting mid-November 2023.  The deadline for applications is 11th October 2013.

Sociological Research Online is published by the international social science publishing house SAGE.  The editorial team has just been informed this week that the Impact Factor of the journal has increased to 1.6.

Interested candidates should submit a pro forma application of no more than 2 pages and a short CV. To receive a pro forma application, please contact Selina Hisir, BSA
Publications Coordinator, at email:  sro.journal@britsoc.org.uk

As current book review editor I am very happy to talk to interested sociologists informally.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

Email:   evteijlingen@bournemouth.ac.uk

Drumming for health event – 10th May 2023

Coffee Morning

Please join us at our next ADRC coffee morning on May 10th from 11-12:30 (arrival at 10:45 in reception).This is an in-person coffee morning which will be taking place at our Executive Business Centre at Lansdowne Campus.

In this session Caroline, Lyndsey, Michelle and Kim will join us to share their work on the impact of drumming on health and wellbeing. During the session they will share the findings of their research focused on drumming with people with dementia, before inviting you to take part in a drumming session.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Places are free but if you would like to attend please email adrc@bournemouth.ac.uk to book your place.

 

 

 

How the C-19 lockdown has affected the work-life balance of BU academics (Part 5): lessons learned

As the week ends, we would like to close this series of blogs by sharing with you some of the lessons we believe can be learned from the experiences of 70 BU colleagues who completed our survey. Many thanks to all who have already contributed to this research. The results we have presented so far are only part of the data. The survey will remain open until the end of May, when we will then analyse all responses to improve our understanding of the impact of the C-19 lockdown on academics across the UK and beyond. If you have not yet contributed to this survey, you are kindly invited to do so here: tiny.cc/acad19, and please do share with your networks. This is a cross-faculty (FHSS and FST) collaboration conducted by an interdisciplinary team with expertise in social sciences (Prof Sara Ashencaen Crabtree), public health (Prof Ann Hemingway) and physical geography (Dr Luciana Esteves).

Lesson learned 1. The complementarity of the quantitative and qualitative data.
The quantitative data helped identifying the factors that are affecting the largest number of respondents and where there are contrasting views or experiences between groups of respondents. The qualitative data provided insights into how the factors have affected the respondents and why, particularly on specific personal circumstances and other aspects that were not included in the closed-ended questions. This research would be deficient without one or the other.

Lesson learned 2. Working from home is bringing compounded benefits to the majority and is something that is wished to remain as an option in the longer term.
You can find some insights about the benefits identified by respondents at the end of blog Part 2. Academics are not alone in wishing for flexibility to work remotely to continue after lockdown and some employers have already surveyed their employees preferences as they start planning for reshaping their office spaces.

Lesson learned 3. Some negative aspects of working from home will subside when lockdown restrictions are reduced but others will persist.
These are some examples:

  • Less pressure from balancing family and work needs when schools re-open; home-care support can resume; when social distancing measures allow some more interaction with family and friends (even if just a small number)
  • Inadequate workspace at home may persist due to space and/or financial difficulties in making adjustments to transform home shared spaces into quiet workspaces.

Lesson learned 4. Online teaching is seeing as positive by some and negative by others (see blog Part 2).
Part of the negative effect was due to the increased workload resulting from the fast pace in which adjustments needed to be made, sometimes under duress of lack of experience/training (including how to use software/tools) and/or inadequate equipment. Considerations of how to provide training and sharing of good practices are likely to be beneficial to some staff.

Lesson learned 5. The increased inequities that are arising from the rapid changes in the academic environment.
Conditions are wide ranging when the workspace is each one’s home. Some are perfectly suited or can be well adjusted, others were never meant to be. Identifying and supporting the staff who need to work from an office outside their home becomes crucial and urgent. Other long-standing inequities have been aggravated during lockdown (see blog Part 4), including but not limited to gender bias, with strong consequences to research.

Lesson learned 6. A fresh management approach is needed to address these emerging inequities.
Providing the specific support that is needed by staff who have been the most negatively affected should be prioritised to reduce inequities. The resulting short and long-term impacts of lockdown on staff productivity, health and wellbeing need to be taken into consideration in appraisals and career progression decisions.

Lesson learned 7. Most are greatly concerned about workloads and work-life balance when lockdown ends (see blog Part 1).
In addition to addressing emerging inequities, there is considerable concern and opposition to a possible ‘return to normal work’, which has been expressed by respondents (and the academic community at large) as working arrangements and demands affecting productivity and the health and wellbeing of staff.

Lesson learned 8. There is a need to improve communication and guidance from managers to staff dealing with students’ requests and concerns, such as programme leaders.
Managing students’ expectations is a major concern for a large proportion of respondents, more so for specific cohorts or programmes.

Lesson learned 9. Many staff are missing the interaction and support from colleagues.
Identifying ways to promote spontaneous interactions 1-2-1 or in small groups is likely to benefit staff.

Lesson learned 10. Staff wish that their experiences inform decisions and help shaping the ‘new normal’ working environment.
A working group with university management, UCU and senior leadership staff could be formed to co-create and shape the ‘new normal’ and the strategies that can be implemented to reduce emerging and long-standing inequalities.

How the C-19 lockdown has affected the work-life balance of BU academics (Part 3)

Women's Academic Network

In our previous blogs, we showed that work-life balance during lockdown got worse for 59% and improved for 37% of the 70 BU academics who responded to our survey (blog Part 1). We also showed how some aspects of life in lockdown have affected groups of people differently. For example, a considerably higher proportion of respondents under 40 years of age reported negative effect from switching to online teaching (75%), change in the number of emails (58%) and changes in the number of meetings (50%) in relation to other age groups (blog Part 2). This blog Part 3 focuses on how the main concerns of academics shifted through time and the support they have found most helpful.

If you have not yet contributed to this survey, you are kindly invited to do so here: https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/impact-of-lockdown-on-academics, and please do share with your networks. If you want us to be able to identify that you are BU staff, you will need to provide this information in one of the open questions.

We asked respondents to identify the three main concerns they had at the start of the outbreak, at the start of the lockdown and at present from a list of 15 options. While respondents’ main concerns have changed through time, the health of a family member or close friend have always remained within the top three (Figure 1). Own health and coping with changes at work were within the top three main concerns at the start of both the outbreak and lockdown but subsided in priority afterwards. As lockdown progressed, main concerns shifted to broader issues such as the duration and/or gravity of the pandemic and longer-term impacts in the country or the world in general. It is important to note that, from the start of the outbreak to the time they responded to the survey (end of April/early May), work-life balance and the consequences to own work in the longer-term became a major concern to a considerably larger proportion of respondents.

Figure 1. Respondents’ main concerns at the start of the outbreak, at the start of the lockdown and at present.

In open comments, respondents identified other aspects that are of major concern, which can be grouped as worries about own or others health, managing circumstances at home or at work (Table 1).

Table 1. Other major concerns expressed by respondents

Figure 2 highlights the types of support that were considered to be helpful and the ones that need to be improved to help a larger number of staff (e.g. provision of IT equipment, which BU is currently addressing and support from line managers). Unsurprisingly, having good internet connection at home was considered very helpful by 65% of respondents and the support from family and colleagues was considered extremely valuable at these critical times .

Figure 2. Respondents indication of how helpful were these particular types of support available to them.

Responses to open questions provided insights on the relevance of support received and identified other means of support not listed in Figure 2. These other means of support are summarised in Table 2.

The support offered by learning technologists and other colleagues to enable the quick turnaround to online teaching was considered invaluable. In terms of support provided by the university, the extra days of leave were mentioned most often. Respondents indicate that they appreciate the ‘gesture of goodwill’ but are concerned that they might not be able to take these days in the near future due to work pressures. It was also mentioned that these extra days do not cover for the costs of working from home, e.g. internet charges.

Table 2. Examples of other types of support and coping strategies respondents found useful during lockdown.

Respondents identified four aspects in which support from the university could be more effective:

  • Availability of equipment and workspace adequate for job – this included computer/laptop, desk/chair, internet and quiet space at home.
  • Better communication and/or more timely guidance from the university to help staff dealing with student queries – issues of concern included the cascading of communication, with staff sometimes learning information from students and poor/insufficient information and support to staff, particularly affecting programme leaders, the first port of call to student cohorts.
  • Need for management to plan ahead more efficiently
  • Support and guidance to staff undertaking PhDs

 

Who are the respondents?

Exposure to Covid-19

  • 7% of respondents (5 out of 68) had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive or live with someone who did. All are female respondents in their 20s, 30s and 50s. Two of these households had someone at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
  • 22% of respondents (15 out of 68) had close family members, friends or colleagues who had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive. All are female respondents in their 30s, 40s and 50s (the majority, 9 respondents).
  • 41% of respondents (28 out of 68) live in a household where there is at least one person at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

How the C-19 lockdown has affected the work-life balance of BU academics (Part 2)

Women's Academic Network

Our blog Part 1 (posted on Friday May 15th) provided a very crude overview of the preliminary results from the survey we have launched to collate data on the impact of C-19 lockdown on the work-life balance of academics. This Part 2 focuses on differences between groups of respondents and identifying whether particular groups have been more negatively affected. We are yet to do any statistical tests on these data, so please consider differences between groups with care.

We have received 170 responses to date, 70 we could identify as being from BU staff (63 from female colleagues). If you have not yet contributed to this survey, you can still to do so here: https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/impact-of-lockdown-on-academics, and please do share with your networks, as the survey is open to all academics. If you want us to be able to identify that you are BU staff, you will need to mention BU in one of the open questions. This research is a cross-faculty collaboration conducted by Sara Ashencaen Crabtree (FHSS), Ann Hemingway (FHSS) and myself (FST).

Work-life balance during lockdown got worse for the majority of respondents (59%) and improved for 37%. The most common reason for worsening or improving work-life balance were ‘workload increased’ (31%) and ‘I could do what was needed and be at home/with family’ (24%), respectively (Figure 1a). Although there are differences across gender (Figure 1b), any differences between male and female respondents should not be considered representative of the wider community due to the small number of male respondents.

Figure 1. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown and the selected reasons for identifying positive or negative change (a) and reported changes per gender of respondents (b). Blue shades indicate work-life balance improved and red shades indicate it worsened.

A higher proportion of academics under the age of 40 (82%) indicated that their work-life balance has worsened during lockdown when compared with other age groups (Figure 2a). Most of these academics reported that work-life balance worsened because they couldn’t work much. For academics in their 50s or older, the key reason for worsening of work-life balance was the increase in workload.

Figure 2. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown per age group (a); presence of children in the household (b) – the group ‘with children’ includes children ages 0-12 and teenagers; and household size (c).

Balancing work and childcare and/or homeschooling  was mentioned as a negative effect on work-life balance during lockdown by 18% and 7% respectively. However, this does not seem to be the main cause affecting respondents under the age of 40, when responses between groups with and without children are compared. In fact, 87% of respondents in their 40s live in a household with children 12 years old or younger and yet the proportion of this age group reporting worsened work-life balance was lower (55%) than the proportion of respondents with no children (60%). However, respondents who live in a household with younger children seem to be more negatively affected.

All respondents (N=8) who live with children under the age of 5 years have reported that their work-life balance have worsened (Figure 2b), the majority indicated an increase in workload as the main reason. However, no major differences were found when comparing groups of respondents who live with children (all ages under 19 included) and households without children. Interestingly, a lower proportion of respondents who live with children aged 5-12 years report worse work-life balance (50%) than respondents who do not have children in their household (60%) (Figure 2b). Further, work-life balance has improved for a higher proportion of respondents who live in a household of three people (45%) than in other household sizes (<40%) (Figure 2c).

In all faculties, a higher number of respondents reported work-life balance getting worse than improving, except FST (Figure 3a), where work-life balance has improved for 50% of respondents and worsened for 36%. Professors were the only group with more respondents indicating work-life balance improved (50%) than worsened (25%); in contrast, all associate professors reported worsened work-life balance (Figure 3b), but the small sample in both groups may not be representative.

Figure 3. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown per faculty (a) and position (b).

Switching to online teaching and not being able to meet with colleagues in person, socialise and engage with preferred leisure activity were the factors affecting negatively more than 50% of respondents (Figure 4).When lockdown restrictions are lifted, two of these factors (socialise and engage with preferred leisure activity) will have less effect on academics work-life balance, but more could be done to support colleagues negatively affected by the switch to online teaching and missing the contact with colleagues while working remotely.

More respondents have indicated a positive than negative impact from changes in the number of meetings and switching to online meetings emails (Figure 4). Fewer and more effective meetings were reported as the positive impacts. However, for some respondents, there are too many online meetings and they are getting tired of (avoidable) prolonged screen time (an effect that has been called Zoom fatigue). Therefore, guidance on how best to use, organise and participate in online meetings and how to manage and reduce screen time/tiredness may be useful.

Figure 4. The impact of selected factors on the work-life balance of respondents during lockdown.

A considerably higher proportion of respondents under 40 years of age report negative effect from switching to online teaching (75%), change in the number of emails (58%) and changes in the number of meetings (50%) in relation to other age groups (Figure 5). This age group also shows lower proportion of staff indicating positive effect from these three factors.

Figure 5. Reported impact per age group from (a) switching to online teaching; (b) changes in number of emails; and (c) changes in number of meetings.

FMC is the only faculty with more than 50% of respondents reporting negative effect from switching to online teaching (58%), change in the number of emails (58%) and changes in the number of meetings (67%). FST and FM are the faculties with 50% of respondents reporting positive impact from changes in the number of meetings.  FHSS has the largest proportion of respondents indicating negative effect from switching to online teaching (62%) and strong negative effect due to changes in the number of emails (54%). Increased number of emails from students has been reported, particularly by FHSS staff who support students who were asked to work for the NHS.

Figure 6. Reported impact per faculty from (a) switching to online teaching; (b) changes in number of emails; and (c) changes in number of meetings.

Figure 7 shows word clouds based on responses to the open questions asking for the two most important factors leading to negative and positive impacts on their work-life balance during lockdown. Increased demand for student support was the most cited negative factor (by 27% of respondents), followed by missing contact with colleagues and inadequate equipment (e.g. IT, desk, chair) and balancing childcare (19%). Less commuting or travel for work was the most cited factor affecting work-life balance positively (46% of respondents), followed by time with family (25%) and enjoying working from home (15%).

Figure 7. Word cloud showing how respondents expressed the negative (a) and positive (b) factors affecting their work-life balance during C-19 lockdown.

In responses to open questions, it is apparent that many negative aspects of the lockdown relate to aspects that are likely to subside when restrictions are lifted (e.g. reopening of schools, meeting with family and friends, enjoying leisure activities). Other negative aspects relate to the fast pace in which academic staff had to switch to online activities, sometimes without adequate workspace, equipment and/or training, leading to overwork. On the other hand, respondents report many substantial advantages of working from home, many wishing that this can continue (at least for part of the time) in the longer term. This is a summary of the advantages respondents have identified:

  • No travelling = more control over time + less exhaustion + less expense + better for the environment + spending more time with family
  • Healthier – nutritionally better, more physical rest, more exercise
  • Staying safe – better protected at home, avoiding traffic hazards
  • Gaining extra hours to work
  • Slower pace = more time to concentrate; a breathing space
  • Greater autonomy to manage time and priorities
  • Greater flexibility = ingenuity and novelty, new ways of teaching and supporting students remotely
  • Less stress and physical/mental wear-&-tear
  • Stripping back work dross – basic priorities reveals a lot of bureaucracy that can be avoided

 Who are the respondents?


Exposure to Covid-19

  • 7% of respondents (5 out of 68) had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive or live with someone who did. All are female respondents in their 20s, 30s and 50s. Two of these households had someone at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
  • 22% of respondents (15 out of 68) had close family members, friends or colleagues who had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive. All are female respondents in their 30s, 40s and 50s (the majority, 9 respondents).
  • 41% of respondents (28 out of 68) live in a household where there is at least one person at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

How the C-19 lockdown has affected the work-life balance of BU academics (Part 1)

Awarded & submitted bids, Women's Academic Network

Last month we (Ashencaen Crabtree, Ann Hemingway and I) started a survey to collate data from the Women’s Academic Network on the impact of C-19 lockdown, initially targeting BU women academics, and then opening the survey to the wider academic community. We aim to identify lessons learned that can inform what staff and universities can do to reduce the impact of these abrupt changes on our work-life balance, particularly focusing on people who have been most affected. We have received 157 responses to date, 70 we could identify as being from BU staff (63 from female colleagues). The answers are providing a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data and we have just starting the analysis. However, we know how important and timely the findings are and so we have decided to disseminate our initial results in a series of blogs.

If you have not yet contributed to this survey, you are kindly invited to do so here: https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/impact-of-lockdown-on-academics, and please do share with your networks. If you want us to be able to identify that you are BU staff, you will need to provide this information in one of the open questions.

This Part 1 presents (crude) initial analysis (graphs mainly) focusing solely on the 70 responses from BU staff. We hope this will give you a timely glimpse of how recent changes have affected BU academics.  Every day next week we will post a blog with further insights on each aspect covered in the graphs below and others we are yet to analyse, including the key coping mechanisms staff have used during lockdown and the changes respondents think could help improve work-life balance if they remain an option in the longer-term.

Work-life balance during lockdown got worse for 59% of respondents and improved for 37% (Figure 1). Blog Part 2 will discuss differences across age groups, faculties and career levels.

Figure 1. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown (a) and the selected reasons for identifying positive or negative change (b). ‘Other’ refers to other reasons for improved or worsened work-life balance.

Some factors have impacted the work-life balance of more than 70% of respondents (switching to online teaching, changes in the number of emails, changes in the number of meetings and not being able to socialise in person), while others were considered to have minor/no impact by most respondents (not being able to access campus facilities, switching to online meetings, lack of suitable work space at home and not having access to suitable IT equipment at home) (Figure 2). Some of these factors had a positive effect on the work-life balance of most respondents, while others affected a higher number of staff negatively than positively (see next week’s blogs for more details).

Figure 2. The level of impact of selected factors on the work-life balance of respondents during lockdown.

In an open question, less time commuting or travelling for work (46% of respondents) and student support requests (27%) were the most cited factors affecting respondents’ work-life balance positively and negative, respectively (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Most cited top two aspects that have affected respondents’ work-life balance (a) positively and (b) negatively (showing categorised responses cited at least five times).

Respondents’ main concerns have changed through time: longer-term impacts in the country or the world in general and  work-life balance have become more of a concern at present, while the health of a family member or close friend have always remained within the top three (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Respondents’ main concerns at the start of the outbreak, at the start of the lockdown and at present.

Figure 5 highlights the type of support that was considered to be helpful and the ones that need to be improved to help a larger number of staff (e.g. provision of IT equipment, which BU is currently addressing and support from line managers).  Look for the next blogs for further insights on these aspects and suggestions from staff of other support they would welcome from the university.

Figure 5. Respondents indication of how helpful were these particular types of support available to them.

Finding or maintaining work-life balance when lockdown ends was identified as a major challenge by 51% of respondents (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Major challenges identified regarding work at the end of lockdown.

80% or more of respondents think the C-19 outbreak has brought long-lasting changes in their attitude to ‘priorities and needs’ and work, considerably for 27% and 19% of respondents, respectively (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Perception of long-lasting changes brought by the C-19 outbreak.

Who are the respondents?

 

Exposure to Covid-19

  • 7% of respondents (5 out of 68) had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive or live with someone who did. All are female respondents in their 20s, 30s and 50s.
  • 22% of respondents (15 out of 68) had close family members, friends or colleagues who had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive. All are female respondents in their 30s, 40s and 50s (the majority, 10 respondents).
  • 41% of respondents (28 out of 68) live in a household where there is at least one person at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.