Mapping the Characteristics of Residents Using Temporary Housing on Lincolnshire’s East Coast and their Exposure to Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes

In the UK, approximately 17% of the population reside in coastal areas. Coastal communities are increasingly being identified as areas of growing risk for poor health and social outcomes. A recent report by the Chief Medical Officer highlights the unique health challenges faced by people who reside in coastal areas and Lincolnshire’s coastal communities, particularly the towns of Mablethorpe and Skegness in the district of East Lindsey, are amongst the most deprived in the country.

An important subgroup of Lincolnshire’s coastal communities are residents using ‘temporary’ housing (RUTH). Historically the coastal community has hosted a large number of caravans, chalets and other forms of temporary housing to accommodate large numbers of holiday makers. Over time the quantity and quality of this accommodation has changed and there has been an increase in the number of people choosing to use this housing option as a long-term residence. This has resulted in the emergence of what we might call long term RUTH.

Little is known about RUTH in the UK. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant proportion of long-term RUTH do not connect with local health and social care services (including registration with general medical practices) but have high health and care needs; they are older, present with multiple chronic health conditions and high levels of limiting long-term illness and disability. These characteristics increase their risk for developing type 2 diabetes or for poor control and management of existing diabetes. Undetected or uncontrolled type 2 diabetes generates significant cost pressure for health services and causes premature death, healthy life expectancy and long-term disability.

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) East Midlands to conduct scoping work with Lincolnshire’s East Coast RUTH community who are potentially at risk of type 2 diabetes but experience inequity of access to diabetes prevention and management services. The work supports engagement with RUTH through three connected work packages. The first work package, which is the focus of this report1 involves mapping the numbers, demographics and geographical distribution of RUTH as well as their likely health needs related to diabetes prevention and management.

This first part of the research was to quantify and document the extent of the RUTH population on the East Coast of Lincolnshire and their exposure to type 2 diabetes.

To meet this aim we asked the following question(s):
Research Question 1: What is the geographical distribution of RUTH?
Research Question 2: What are the general characteristics and demographics of RUTH?
Research Question 3: What are the area-based indicators for type 2 diabetes risk where RUTH populations live?

University of Lincoln, College of Social Science Research

Dr David Nelson, Dr Maxime Inghels and Prof. Mark Gussy, Lincoln International Institute for Rural Health

Patient-maintained versus anaesthetist-controlled propofol sedation during elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty performed under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial

Patient-maintained propofol TCI sedation (PMPS) allows patients to titrate their own target-controlled infusion (TCI) delivery of propofol sedation using a handheld button. The aim of this RCT was to compare PMPS with anaesthetist-controlled propofol TCI sedation (ACPS) in patients undergoing elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

David W. Hewson, Nottingham University Hospitals, Queen’s Medical Centre, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine
Frank Worcester, Nottingham Trent University, Medical Engineering Design Research Group
James Sprinks, Nottingham Trent University, Medical Engineering Design Research Group
Murray D. Smith, University of Lincoln, Community and Health Research Unit
Heather Buchanan, University of Nottingham, Division of Rehabilitation and Ageing
Philip Breedon, Nottingham Trent University, Medical Engineering Design Research Group
Jonathan G. Hardman, Nottingham University Hospitals, Queen’s Medical Centre, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine
Nigel M. Bedforth, Nottingham University Hospitals, Queen’s Medical Centre, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine

The Burglary Cognitive Distortions Scale: its association with burglary proclivity and other key variables

Cognitive distortions play a key role in offending but have not been researched in relation to burglary. Using the literature on offence-related cognition as a guide (which is primarily focused on sexual offending), the present two studies aimed to develop and validate the Burglary Cognitive Distortions Scale (BCDS). Drawing upon the burglary literature, an initial pool of 36-items was produced. Two online studies using community-based participants were then conducted. Each study involved administering the BCDS, along with measures of burglary proclivity, general criminal beliefs, empathy, and human needs. In Study 1 (N1= 306), an exploratory factor analysis of the BCDS produced two factors: (1) Acquisitive Entitlement, and (2) Survive by any Means. In Study 2 (N2 = 266), confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure and helped refine the item pool. In each study, the 24-item CFA version of the BCDS was found to be associated with general criminal beliefs and burglary proclivity. Factor 1 of the BCDS, as well as general criminal beliefs, independently predicted proclivity scores. Future research should now aim to validate the BCDS using a sample of people who have committed burglary, as it holds promise for use in forensic settings and research.

University of Lincoln, College of Social Science Research

Matthew King-Parker, University of Lincoln, School of Psychology

Ross Bartels, University of Lincoln, School of Psychology

Tochukwu Onwuegbusi, University of Lincoln, School of Psychology

Adrian Parke, University of the West of Scotland, School of Education and Social Sciences


Social Care and Research Half day event with Lunch

Join us for this learning and network event which will include interactive workshops, keynote presentations and opportunities to meet other participants and network. Lunch and refreshments are provided.

This event is designed to bring together the Social Care provider and practitioner community along with the Research community to hopefully gain an understanding of each other’s roles and contributions, start some conversations and build connections to advance the social care research agenda.

The delegates will include representatives from Home Care, Care Home (ENRICH) Volunteer, Charity and Faith sectors, along with PAs, carers and service users, Adult Social Care, Social Workers and wide representation from the Research community. We are keen to have representation from social care students, and those interested in research in this area.

Keynote speakers:

Geraldine McDonald (Professor of Social Work and NIHR National Speciality Lead for Social Care)

Leanne Dew ( Department of Health and Social Care, Principal Research Analyst, Research Programmes Branch – Health and Care Section, Science, Research and Evidence Directorate)

Tue, 15 March 2022, 12:00 – 16:00 GMT

The Showroom, Tritton Road, Lincoln, LN6 7QY

The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique

The SMART acronym (e.g., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound) is a highly prominent strategy for setting physical activity goals. While it is intuitive, and its practical value has been recognised, the scientific underpinnings of the SMART acronym are less clear. Therefore, we aimed to narratively review and critically examine the scientific underpinnings of the SMART acronym and its application in physical activity promotion. Specifically, our review suggests that the SMART acronym: is not based on scientific theory; is not consistent with empirical evidence; does not consider what type of goal is set; is not applied consistently; is lacking detailed guidance; has redundancy in its criteria; is not being used as originally intended; and has a risk of potentially harmful effects. These issues are likely leading to sub-optimal outcomes, confusion, and inconsistency. Recommendations are provided to guide the field towards better practice and, ultimately, more effective goal setting interventions to help individuals become physically active.