Getting to grips with visual data

Over the summer the Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care (CRIPACC) at the University of Hertfordshire hosted five Nuffield Foundation research placement students. Last week Chelsea reflected on her time in CRIPACC (click here to read), and this week Susanna has written a guest blog post about her research placement exploring visual data…

Over my summer holiday, I dedicated four weeks working under the supervision of the Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care (CRIPACC), undertaking a project called ‘Content analysis of user generated images relating to older people and food’. During this placement, I was given a range of data such as images and videos gathered by the participants aged 60 and above. The data were collected from 21 households. The images had to be categorised into main and sub-themes after I’d familiarised myself with the method of content analysis from the books provided for me. For example I decided that photos showing food should have descriptive sub-themes such as healthy, unhealthy, home cooked and takeaway meals. This strategy made the differences amongst the images more evident. One of the aims of this research was to highlight if there were common trends present amongst the data. For instance, themes relating to older people going to bingo and social club gatherings were dominant whilst the theme of ‘grow your own’ fruit and veg was not as popular.

Below is an example of how I categorised one image taken by a participant’s wife (his face is blurred so that he cannot be identified):

My placement begun at 10:00 am and ended officially by 3:00 pm every day. As it was the summer holidays some of my supervisors were away, therefore as well as face to face meetings I could also email or Skype with them to ensure I received good advice to help my understanding of the research.

As a result of this four week placement, I have had the opportunity to improve on my confidence, working with others and as part of a team in a professional setting (as I worked in an office). I also worked alongside experts in their field of work. I have gained valuable insight concerning the field of health research. I was challenged to meet set deadlines as well as working independently to ensure these demands were met to a good quality standard. Moreover, I had the opportunity to speak to both a nutritionist and a dietician who provided me with insightful advice concerning their occupations (as it is a field I am interested in).

Furthermore, I had the opportunity to make new friends, increase my network and gain overall experience working with CRIPACC and the Nuffield Foundation. This experience was such a privilege and a pleasure.

Susanna 

My Nuffield Foundation research placement

Over the summer the Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care (CRIPACC) at the University of Hertfordshire hosted five Nuffield Foundation research placement students. Below is a guest post from Chelsea reflecting on her time in the department and the independent research she conducted...

Throughout the summer, I have been taking part in a Nuffield research placement at the University of Hertfordshire.

My project focused on investigating the nutritional information dietitians across England are using with their patients who have type 2 diabetes. This involved reviewing and implementing a previously piloted electronic survey via Survey monkey. In order to achieve my aims, I carried out field work such as meeting with a community pharmacist, who shared her views on the lack of a platform between dietitians and pharmacists. I also liaised with dietitians and staff at the university who were very supportive in reviewing my modified survey and making helpful suggestions and improvements. After 21 days, the online survey was closed and the findings analysed. The key trends were spotted and comparisons made.

It was a great opportunity to be able to get a placement on the Nuffield research scheme, as it provided me with experience through a hands on approach. I got an opportunity to carry out an entire study from start to finish whilst contributing to national research on a topic that affects 1 in 17 adults in the UK (Diabetes UK). I worked alongside professionals who have been noticed internationally for their research. Not only did the placement provide me with an insight into the field of research (an aspect of healthcare which I had never previously considered), but it also provided me with experience in a working environment. The placement at the university also equipped me with skills that would be useful when going into university such as a literature searching session on external electronic devices.

During my time at the University of Hertfordshire, I worked in the Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care (CRIPACC).The centre was very welcoming of me in my first week and have continuously shown that support throughout my placement. I even had the opportunity of attending their annual picnic where I had a chance to find out more about the work carried out in CRIPACC, as well as to meet a lay person who has previously worked with CRIPACC. Overall my experience here was truly insightful.

This research placement has really encouraged me to continue to pursue a career in the field of science and has shown me the variety of avenues available for me if I continue to work hard.

Chelsea 

International trends in bullying

The English HBSC team collaborated on an international paper exploring the temporal trends of bullying victimization across Europe and North America. The paper entitled “Cross-national time trends in bullying victimization in 33 countries among children aged 11, 13 and 15 from 2002 – 2010” was published earlier this year as part of a supplement in the European Journal of Public Health¹. The supplement focuses on international trends in young people’s health and their social determinants.

Bullying describes intentional harmful behaviours, which are carried out repeatedly against a weaker individual². Bullying can take many forms including physical, verbal, relational and cyber (for more information on cyberbullying click here for our previous blog post).

Bullying is recognised as a health problem across Europe and North America. Studies have demonstrated that being a victim of bullying is associated with serious health consequences. Cross-national data from the HBSC study conducted in 1998 identified young people who were bullied were more likely to experience both physical (e.g. headaches and stomach aches) and psychological (e.g. feeling low and loneliness) symptoms, with a higher risk of symptoms as the frequency of bullying increased³. Moreover the consequences of bullying have been shown to persist into later life; longitudinal research has established victims of bullying were more likely to experience adverse health outcomes in adult life⁴. It is not just the victims of bullying who experience poor health outcomes, the bullies themselves fare worse than their peers not involved in bullying. A Finnish study found symptoms of anxiety and depression were equally as common among bullies and victims⁵, and bullies were most likely to engage in health risk behaviours such as excessive alcohol consumption and taking drugs⁶.

As bullying is a proven determinant of young people’s health and wellbeing it is important to monitor trends in bullying victimisation, and drawing on cross national comparisons allows lessons to be shared across countries.

The paper highlights that bullying is still a fairly common occurrence in the 33 countries which took part in the study. Since 2002 a third of countries have demonstrated significant downward trends in bullying for both boys and girls. Only one country (French Belgium) reported significant increasing trends in both occasional and chronic bullying. Gender differences in time trends were evident, with some countries presenting a decline in bullying for only one gender.

The paper raises important questions regarding the need for gender specific programmes to address bullying among both boys and girls, and the necessity for sustained effort in order to ensure the decline in bullying is continued across time.

For a more thorough discussion of the study’s findings read the full paper by clicking here.

1. Chester, K. L., Callaghan, M., Cosma, A., Donnelly, P., Craige, W., Walsh, S. & Michal, M. (2015). Cross-national time trends in bullying victimization in 33 countries among children aged 11, 13 and 15 from 2002 – 2010. Eur J Public Health, 25 (Suppl 2), 61-64.
2. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What We Know and What Can We Do. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
3. Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., et al. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: international comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries. Eur J Public Health, 15, 128–132.
4. Wolke, D., Copeland, W. E., Angold, A. & Costello, E. J. (2013). Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes. Psychological science, 24(10), 1958-1970.
5. Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P. & Rimpela, A. (2000). Bullying at school – an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23 (6), 661-674.
6. Alikasifoglu, M., Erginoz, E., Ercan, O., Uysal, O. & Albayrak-Kaymak, D. (2007). Bullying behaviours and psychosocial health: results from a cross-sectional survey among high school students in Istanbul, Turkey. Eur J Pediatr, 166, 1253-1260.      

What we think

The following blog post was written by Roman and Vato, both 15 years old, during their time spent with the HBSC England team for work experience. After studying HBSC England data they have provided an insightful account of adolescent life in order to interpret the findings. 

As students on work experience, we were given the chance to look at some data in order to interpret it; giving our own opinions on what that data could mean and why. Since adolescents are often tokenised and not really taken seriously, we were relieved when we actually had the chance to express ourselves.

Our main concern was the fact that so much adult attention was focused on the usage of risk behaviours in our age group. The media and even those in power seem to think that adolescents are all potheads that have replaced their blood with alcohol and their brains with nicotine. Safe to say, this is not actually true, and anyone who happens to believe this may want to contact their local GP. In any case, the risk behaviours were never truly significant anyway. They are simply a way for adolescents to entertain themselves and even escape reality, despite being extremely detrimental to one’s health. But honestly young people have learned this already.

With the education system constantly churning out new ways to teach both adolescents and children about the risk behaviours, our generation is more cautious about these dangers. Due to the past high levels of substance consumption, risk behaviours have almost become social norms and so they are not seen as “cool” anymore, which has led to the rates of consumption decreasing. From looking at the data, we theorised that the consumption of risk behaviours could be fluctuating. If this were the case, it might be that in a few years, the rates of consumption could increase yet again.

Honestly though, there is little point in focusing on risk behaviours. They are not the causes of adolescent problems, they are the effects. Teenagers turn to drugs when they are depressed. They smoke when they are lonely. They drink when they are stressed. Just a few examples of reality that should have been obvious. Substance usage happens because of a large variety of different internal problems, and while it could be that educating adolescents on substances is helpful, the focus should not be on the usage, it should be on why they are used, and what one could do instead. And even better, there should be so much more attention paid to the fact that Internal Problems Are Real.

When the government expects us to learn and develop at school, what they don’t realise is that they have given us three options:

1. Good Grades                       
2. Good Health                          
3. A Social Life

And told us we can choose two.

With the current education system, adolescents are usually left almost completely busy with school work, meaning they barely have time for the activities they need to actually develop as human beings.

Let’s calculate it shall we?

6 hours of school per day, and for healthy living young people require 9-11 hours of sleep. Now we aren’t unfair, so we’ll go with 10. 6+10 = 16. This leaves 8 hours awake at home. Now maybe homework is not so intensive before GCSE’s, but it still eats quite a large amount of time, and when GCSE’s come into the picture, homework can take up to 5 hours per day. The government also recommends 1 hour of physical activity per day.

So. For an adolescent doing GCSE’s to be healthy and do work, they are left with 2-3 hours to eat, socialise, rest, pursue their interests, deal with the problems of puberty, connect with their family, deal with various drama and friendships, develop as humans, find out who they are beyond schoolwork, learn about the news of the world which will definitely concern them later on, think about life and what they want to do in the future, and actually live as nature intended.

2 hours. To do that. What the hell is wrong with you? (This is not to say all teenagers are left with 2 hours to live, it is simply a base picture. This can and does happen quite a bit.) In all seriousness, there is little wonder that adolescents are faced with so many internal struggles; stress, anxiety, depression. Not helpful when society and medial interaction states that they should be perfect or they won’t be loved. Not helpful when school rules dictate that if you forget a sock in P.E you will be faced with an after-school detention (I am not joking with you; this is actually what happens to us).

And beyond that, young people face the challenge of trying to communicate their problems to adults who don’t realise that even if their past seemed easy for them, it does not mean that now is easy for us. Some of them don’t even believe in mental health problems just because they can’t see them. Depression doesn’t leave bruises, but it still harms us. It still exists.

There are thousands of ways we could conclude this, talking about stereotype, empathy, the government. Michael Gove. But all we can truly do is give you what we have written. Take from it what you will.

Thank you for reading.

Roman and Vato.

Video gaming: it's all about moderation!

We have recently published an article in the Journal of Youth Studies entitled “Video gaming in adolescence: factors associated with leisure time use”¹.

Since video games first emerged in the 1970’s, with the likes of Pong and Space Invaders, the video game industry has become a significant sector of the economy; in the UK alone 1.4 million copies of Call of Duty Black Ops™ were bought on the games launch day². Video games are now a regular feature of adolescent leisure time, with a recent UK based study suggesting 3 out of 4 young people play video games on a daily basis³. Technological developments have resulted in the gaming experiencing becoming increasingly more versatile; with the ability to play online with friends, interact physically with games and access games through mobile apps.

Traditionally much research has focused on the negative effects of playing video games. Studies have suggested video game play is associated with poorer mental health⁴ and impaired academic achievement^5. In particular there is considerable debate around the implications of playing violent video games, with research suggesting that violent video game playing may be linked to an increase in aggressive behaviours⁶. More recently, research has begun to address the positive aspects of video gaming including improved social skills and problem solving⁷. Przybylski (2014) suggested a more nuanced understanding of gaming compared with the traditional dichotomous good vs bad divide; young people who played games for up to 1 hour a day demonstrated more positive outcomes than those who didn’t play at all, while the opposite was true for those who played for more than 3 hours a day.

Considering the potential negative outcomes of video game play, many countries and associations have issued recommended guidelines. In the UK, the Public Health Outcomes Framework⁹ is concerned with the negative impact of game play beyond moderate leisure time use, and as such is committed to monitoring levels of game play exceeding 2 hours or more. 

Data from the 2010 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study in England¹⁰ identified  20% of girls and 55% of boys were playing video games for two or more hours on weekdays. Figure 1 (summarising HBSC England 2010 data) shows boys are more likely than girls to report playing video games for 2 or more hours a day during the week across all ages. Compared with data from the HBSC England 2006 survey, the proportion of both boys and girls who reported playing for more than two hours had significantly increased.

Our paper identified associations between young peoples’ video gaming levels and their social environment as well as their health and wellbeing. In line with previous work³, our research suggests video gaming is not intrinsically positive or negative. For boys, being in the middle category for game play was associated with having more friends of the opposite sex than those in the lowest category; and for girls it was associated with engaging in more family activities. In contrast, the highest levels of video gaming were found to be associated with negative aspects for both boys and girls. In particular, boys who reported playing video games for more than 4 hours a day during the week were more likely to report going to bed hungry, bullying others and being bullied.

The analysis demonstrates the important role parents play in structuring and regulating levels of video gaming among young people. Young people who reported their parents had a say in deciding how they spent their free time were less likely to play video games at the higher levels compared with those who had no parental input. However we found an interesting relationship between level of parental control and video gaming which supports the “boomerang effect” where young people with strictest parental mediation actually played video games more frequently!

For a more thorough discussion of this research you can access the published paper by clicking here.    

By clicking here, you can also read a guest blog post written by Sam and Tom (both aged 15) to find out what young people themselves think about video games.

References

1. Brooks, F.M., Chester, K.L., Smeeton, N.C. & Spencer, N. (2015). Video gaming in adolescence: factors associated with leisure time use. Journal of Youth Studies, DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2015.1048200
2. Dring, C. (2010). Black Ops smashes UK day 1 record. Retrieved 18th March 2015, from http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/black-ops-smashes-uk-day-1-record
3. Przybylski, A.K. (2014). Electronic gaming and psychosocial adjustment. Pediatrics, 134(3), 1-7.
4. Page, A.S., Cooper, A.R., Griew, P. & Jago, R. (2010). Children's screen viewing is related to psychological difficultiesirrespective of physical activity. Pediatrics, 126(5), e1011-e1017.
5. Jaruratanasirikul, S., Wongwaitaweewong, K. & Sangsupawanich, P. (2009). Electronic game play and school performance of adolescents in southern Thailand. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(5), 509-512. 
6. Gentile, D.A., Lynch, P.J., Linder, J.R. & Walsh, D.A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 5-22.
7. Adachi, P.J.C. & Willoughby, T. (2013). More than just fun and games: the longitudinal relationships between strategic videogames, self-reported problem solving skills, and academic grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1041-1052.
8. Department of Health. (2012). Report of the Children and Young Person’s Health Outcomes Forum. Retrieved 18th March 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216852/CYP-report.pdf
9. Brooks, F., Magnusson, J., Klemera, E., Spencer, N. & Morgan, A. (2011). HBSC England National Report. Findings from the2010 HBSC study for England. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.

The guest of our blog Dr Wendy Wills asks an interesting question!

WHAT YOUNG PEOPLE BUY TO EAT AND DRINK CLOSE TO THEIR SCHOOL

Research conducted by the University of Hertfordshire suggests many young people at secondary school buy food and drink from shops close to their school, rather than in the school cafeteria. This is for several reasons, including that local shops are friendly and don’t mind young people hanging out with their friends there; they provide cheap food and drink that appeals to young people and also that local shops are nicer places to spend the lunch break, compared with schools.

We are making a film to highlight these research findings and we need YOUNG PEOPLE  to help us decide on a title for the film!

Some suggestions so far are:

Bargaining Chips: Why Young People Buy Food and Drink Outside School

Fry Days: Why Young People Buy Food and Drink Outside School

Come Fry with Me: Why Young People Buy Food and Drink Outside School

Do you have other suggestions? Please let us know! The deadline is the end of July.

Our work experience students, Vato and Roman wrote the blog post about their conference presentation in UH

Conference for Public Engagement with Research

On the 23^rd June 2015, a conference was held in which many researchers got together to display various examples of public engagement in their projects. As young people participating in youth research through work experience, we were invited to this event to give our opinions during a presentation.

The day started out with a welcome from Professor John Senior, the Pro Vice-Chancellor, who gave a short introduction to the idea of public engagement. He then introduced Sophie Duncan, the Deputy Director for the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE).

She then proceeded to give a brief talk about the importance of public engagement with research, providing various statistics and information on the public’s desire to get involved, the best ways of engaging them, and how to integrate public engagement into projects; funding, methods, writing etc.

Although the delivery included much specialist vocab which myself and Roman didn’t understand, we were nonetheless kept engaged (funny joke) as Sophie Duncan interacted with the audience by asking them a number of thought-provoking questions.

With our heads full of public engagement knowledge, we eagerly awaited the rest of the conference. There were many presentations departing much information, and so we decided to pick out our personal favourites of the bunch.

Ever tried to quit at something? Such as smoking or perhaps just trying to change your sleeping pattern? Well it is no secret that changing behaviour is a hard ordeal, especially when the help we seek is often just ineffective. The presentation brought by Ben Fletcher however, brought to light his possible solution, the Do Something project. Usually, programs that help with addiction or changing behaviour are focused on altering the way we think, relying on our willpower as humans. As you can see, this had little willpower of its own behind it (surprise?). Ben Fletcher explained to us that in order to break addiction or alter behaviour, one has to alter their habits. Humans are habitual creatures because habits are quick and easy. This means that once certain habits are formed, it is not only those, but the whole situation that creates a hard foundation, making it difficult to change. For example, a smoker cannot rely on willpower alone to break their habit, they need to shift their outlook and leave their comfort zone. Ways of doing this include taking different routes to places to disrupt routinely life, and in general just trying to view things differently. While this is hard in itself, it is certainly easier than willpower, and I was glad I could listen to this presentation as it truly fascinated me.

Robots are usually pictured as giant, shiny machines that shoot lasers from their eyes…but in reality, they’re designed to help humans complete certain tasks. Anna Dumitriu and Alex May helped explain this as they began discussing their new research-related robot: HARR1. They used HARR1 to experiment with how the public reacted to different situations involving robots. For example, they programmed HARR1 to imitate the emotion of care through physical interaction (touching a person’s face), as well as then reprogramming him to exhibit boredom by first tracking movement and then looking elsewhere for motion if there was none. One of their experiments used a robot that would change its face to fit the participant’s own features. This was to see if it made a robot more appealing to have around the house or if it scared the living daylights out of them. One participant was even seen to run away and hide behind a corner which I thought was particularly funny, even though this seems rather cruel. All in all, I found this very interesting and would like to see how they further develop the robots.

Overall, the conference was very useful for us both, giving us an overview of the sharing and communication that goes into research. The presentations themselves were inspiring, and have led us to think about certain things differently, as well as giving us some cool facts. The experience of the conference (while somewhat tiring and leg-numbing), is something we’ll be hard-pressed to forget.

 

                                         Roman and Vato