Tagged / social sciences

Congratulations to three former BU staff

BU research, Featured academics, Publishing, Research news, writing

Bournemouth University Emeritus Professor, Jonathan Parker, now Health Services University, UK, former BU academic Professor Vanessa Heaslip, now Salford University and Professor Sarah Hean and Pravin Tembjerg from the University of Stavanger, Norway, are pleased to announce the publication of their edited international research collection Rebuilding Family Relations for Children and Youth Separated from Family.  This edited volume is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

This edited volume explores a range of causes for separation of children and young people from family, the impact of these causes, and methods that both professionals and families may employ to build or rebuild these relations. In particular, contributions focus on six high priority crises through which children and young people become either permanently or temporarily separated from their families: removal by child welfare services, migration, family breakdown, placement into institutional care, incarceration and/or the death of a parent. Contributors include scholars in social work, psychology, health, sociology, social policy, and political science and the work develops co-production participatory research methods and tools in addition to empirical research to enhance professional practice.

 

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH

New BU Social Work publication

BU research, Featured academics, international, Uncategorized, writing

Growing international interest in approaches to social work focussing on human growth and development and including each social actor’s real freedoms to act, such as the capabilities approach, has fascinated BU Professor Emeritus, Jonathan Parker. In this new paper Parker and his German colleagues introduce a related, but internationally less well-known concept from German-language philosophy of education discourses, Bildung, arguing that Bildung represents a valuable additional framework that emphasises human growth and human flourishing.
The concept of Bildung has changed over time, with this paper charting development from its late enlightenment-period origins. Two particular variants are highlighted: the original 18th-century Bildung, which focussed on helping the individual reach a state of agency, and Mündigkeit (maturity), a late 20th-century critical theory-influenced Bildung, which focussed on the relationship between the growth of the individual and the society of which they are part. It is suggested that due to their shared tenets, both variants of Bildung can be seen a single concept, one with a strong conceptual closeness to the capabilities approach.
When applied to social work, Bildung suggests a shift away from thinking about the person in terms of utilities and outcomes, towards instead an understanding of a person’s humanness in their freedom to choose their own path and become the author of their own life. Parker and colleagues highlight four key elements of Bildung-informed social work: (1) the role of the social worker stimulating the service user’s dispositions in the context of their social environment; (2) shifting to a relationship-oriented practice, centring on direct work; (3) utilizing community settings in practice, and (4) the importance of refraining from using guidance, persuasion and coercion.
Congratulations!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Reference:
  1. Frampton, M., Friesenhahn, G. J., & Parker, J. (2024). Bildung, capabilities, human freedom and human flourishing: impulses for social work. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 19(1), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v19i1.727

Pregnancy & COVID-19 in UK: New study published

BU research, COVID-19, Featured academics, NHS, Research news, Women's Academic Network, writing

This morning the editor of the Frontiers in Psychiatry emailed us that the paper reporting the findings of the baseline data of a large-scale epidemiological study into pregnancy during COVID-19 in the UK has been published [1].  The interdisciplinary research team includes researchers from University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust (Dr. Latha Vinayakarao & Prof. Minesh Khashu) and Bournemouth University (Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen). 

This longitudinal study explores how the SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] pandemic affected the mental health of pregnant people in the UK.  In mid-to-late 2020, we recruited 3666 individuals in the UK for the EPPOCH pregnancy cohort (Maternal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effect of the Pandemic on Pregnancy Outcomes and Childhood Health). Participants were assessed for depression, anxiety, anger and pregnancy-related anxiety using validated scales. Additionally, physical activity, social support, individualized support and personal coping ability of the respondents were assessed as potential resilience factors.

Participants reported high levels of depression (57.05%), anxiety (58.04%) and anger (58.05%). Higher levels of social and individualized support and personal coping ability were associated with lower mental health challenges. Additionally, pregnant individuals in the UK experienced higher depression during the pandemic than that reported in Canada. Finally, qualitative analysis revealed that restrictions for partners and support persons during medical appointments as well as poor public health communication led to increased mental health adversities and hindered ability to make medical decisions.

The study highlights the increased mental health challenges among pregnant individuals in the UK during pandemic. These results highlight the need for reassessing the mental health support measures available to pregnant people in the UK, both during times of crisis and in general.

Reference:

  1. Datye, S., Smiljanic, M., Shetti, R.H., MacRae-Miller, A., van Teijlingen, E., Vinayakarao, L., Peters, E.M.J., Lebel, C.A., Tomfohr-Madsen, L., Giesbrecht, G., Khashu, M., Conrad, M.L. (2024) Prenatal maternal mental health and resilience in the United Kingdom during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A cross-national comparison, Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1411761

Paper with a difference

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, Publishing, Uncategorized, writing

Last night ResearchGate informed us that our paper ‘Understanding health education, health promotion and public health‘ had reached 6,000 reads [1].  This reflective paper in an Open Access journal tries to bring a little more clarity in the confusion around the difference between the concepts of health education, health promotion and public health. We argue that such confusion does not limit itself to the individual terms but also to how these terms relate to each other. Some authors and public health practitioners use terms such as health education and health promotion interchangeably; others see them clearly as different concepts.

In this theoretical overview paper, we have first of all outlined our understanding of these individual terms. We suggest how the five principles of health promotion as outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) fit into Andrew Tannahill’s model from 2009 [2] of three overlapping areas: (a) health education; (b) prevention of ill health; and (c) health protection. Our schematic overview places health education within health promotion and health promotion itself in the center of the overarching disciplines of education and public health. We hope our representation helps reduce confusion among all those interested in our discipline, including students, educators, journalists, practitioners, policymakers, politicians, and researchers.

The paper is co-authored by a primary school teacher based in Dorset, and four professors who have a combined experience in the wider public health field of over a century.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, K., Devkota, B., Douglas, F., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) Understanding health education, health promotion and public health, Journal of Health Promotion 9(1):1-7.
  2. Tannahill, A. (2009). Health promotion: The Tannahill model revisited. Public Health, 123(5),396-399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2008.05.021