Systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that behaviour change interventions have modest effect sizes, struggle to demonstrate effect in the long term and that there is high heterogeneity between studies. Such interventions take huge effort to design and run for relatively small returns in terms of changes to behaviour.

So why do behaviour change interventions not work and how can we make them more effective? This article offers some ideas about what may underpin the failure of behaviour change interventions. We propose three main reasons that may explain why our current methods of conducting behaviour change interventions struggle to achieve the changes we expect: 1) our current model for testing the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tends to a mean effect size. This ignores individual differences in response to interventions; 2) our interventions tend to assume that everyone values health in the way we do as health professionals; and 3) the great majority of our interventions focus on addressing cognitions as mechanisms of change. We appeal to people’s logic and rationality rather than recognising that much of what we do and how we behave, including our health behaviours, is governed as much by how we feel and how engaged we are emotionally as it is with what we plan and intend to do.

Drawing on our team’s experience of developing multiple interventions to promote and support health behaviour change with a variety of populations in different global contexts, this article explores strategies with potential to address these issues.

My journey in the field of stress and coping began in the mid 1980s when I was researching the rather new field of childhood depression. It was a relatively under-explored field, and as a clinical and educational psychologist it was becoming increasingly apparent that there were concerns of young people, with some of these reflected in their experiences of sadness and despair. However, as I researched and measured the depression construct, I became aware of despair as a growing phenomenon, with an increased focus and emphasis on stress, anxiety and depression. In time, the statistics would bear out the concerns, as one in four young people have identified as being or are likely to be depressed in their lifetime in some Western communities like Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (WHO, 2018). Given the growing ‘ill health’ of our Western communities, something had to change. In the 1980s, young people were concerned about their future with the fear of nuclear war. As I was writing this invited retrospective in late 2019, there were widespread concerns about global warming, and in the first half of 2020 concerns arising from the pandemic of COVID-19 are dominating. Coping theory research and practice can make a significant contribution to how we cope with our world in general and the specifics of our lives in particular. This article reports a body of work in the field of coping to illustrate the value of the core constructs and their applications in diverse settings providing opportunities for helpful adaptation and development in the face of whatever circumstances arise.

Children in armed conflict are frequently deprived of basic needs, psychologically supportive environments, educational and vocational opportunities, and other resources that promote positive psychosocial development and mental health. This article describes the mental health challenges faced by conflict-affected children and youth, the interventions designed to prevent or ameliorate the psychosocial impact of conflict-related experiences, and a case example of the challenges and opportunities related to addressing the mental health needs of Rohingya children and youth.

Introduction: Administrative data can aid in study and intervention design, incorporating hard-to-reach individuals who may otherwise be poorly represented. We aim to use administrative health data to examine emergency department visits by people experiencing homelessness and explore the application of this data for planning interventions. Methods: We conducted a serial cross-sectional study examining emergency department use by people experiencing homelessness and non-homeless individuals in the Niagara region of Ontario, Canada. The study period included administrative health data from April 1st, 2010 to March 31st, 2018. Outcomes included number of visits, number of unique patients; group proportions of Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) scores; time spent in emergency; and time to see an MD. Descriptive statistics were generated, and t-tests were performed for point estimates and a Mann-Whitney U test for distributional measures. Results: Our data included 1,486,699 emergency department visits. The number of unique people experiencing homelessness ranged from 91 in 2010 to 344 in 2017, trending higher over the study period compared to non-homeless patients. The rate of visits increased from 1.7 to 2.8 per person. People experiencing homelessness tend to present later in the day and with higher overall acuity as compared to the general population. Time in emergency department and time to see an MD were greater among people experiencing homelessness. Conclusion: Administrative health data allows researchers to enhance interventions and models of care to improve services for vulnerable populations. Given the challenging fiscal realities of research, our study provides insights to more effectively target interventions for vulnerable populations.

Introduction: Acute pain is frequent among patients visiting the emergency department (ED). In addition to the acute discomfort, pain has been linked to adverse events and poorest outcomes in older adults. However, pain is frequently overlooked by emergency clinicians, particularly in older adults. Advanced age has been linked to poor recognition and under treatment of pain. The contribution of ED investigations and procedures to the patient's pain is unknown. This study aims to determine the intensity of the pain induced by the investigations and procedures commonly performed in the ED. Methods: In two EDs, a convenience sample of older adults (≥ 65 years old) with at least two investigations or procedures performed during their ED visit were eligible. Patients were excluded if they were hemodynamically unstable, in palliative care or not oriented in time and space. The pain intensity was assessed at bedside by a research assistant for the following investigations or procedures: blood sampling, intravenous catheter, electrocardiogram, X-rays, computed tomography, beside ultrasound, urinary catheter, cervical collar and prehospital immobilization mattress. The predetermined sample size was 50 pain assessment per investigation or procedure. The pain intensity was assessed using a numerous rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (most severe pain), for each investigation or procedure received. NRS results are presented using median (med) and interquartile range (IQR) and classified as followed: no pain (0), mild pain (1-3), moderate pain (4-6) and severe pain (7-10). Results: Between June 2018 and December 2019, 494 patients were screened of which 318 were finally included (exclusion: not oriented (n = 113), refusal (n = 27), palliative care (n = 34), other reasons (n = 12)). The mean age of included patients was 77.8 years old (standard deviation = 8.0), 54.4% were female and 78.6% were living in the community. Only 15 patients (4.7%) were known to have cognitive impairment or dementia and 23 patients (7.2%) were on regular or PRN opioid medication at home. The expected sample size of at least 50 pain score assessment per investigation or procedure was obtained for all interventions with the exception of urinary catheter (n = 23) and immobilization mattress (n = 35). For the other investigations or procedures, the number of pain assessment ranged between 51 (cervical collar) and 231 (blood sampling). All investigations and procedures were associated with a median pain score of 0 with the exception of blood sampling (n = 231, med NRS 1 (IQR 0;3)), intravenous catheter (n = 241, med NRS 1 (IQR 0;4)), urinary catheter (n = 23, med NRS 4 (IQR 1;6)), cervical collar (n = 51, med NRS 5 (IQR 0;8)) immobilisation mattress (n = 35, med NRS 3 (IQR 0;8)). Moderate or severe pain (NRS 4-10) was infrequently reported following most investigations or procedures with the exception of urinary catheter (60.8%), cervical collar (54.9%) and immobilization mattress (48.5%). Cervical collar induced severe pain in 41.8% of the patients. Conclusion: Most investigations and procedures commonly administered in the ED to older adults are associated with no pain or low intensity of pain. Severe pain is also infrequently induced by these interventions for most older adults. However, urinary catheter, cervical collar and immobilization mattress are associated with a higher intensity of pain and more than 40% of patients suffering from severe pain following the application of cervical collar. Considering the potential adverse effects of pain and the lack of evidence-based data to support the use of some interventions such as the cervical collar, the decision to use these interventions should be carefully weighted and could include a shared-decision making process. The generalizability of those findings to older adults with cognitive impairment is unknown. Future studies should focus on circumstances in which these procedures are beneficial to the patient to limit the unnecessary pain associated with their use.

L’efficacité des interventions destinées aux proches des individus vivant une psychose a été soulignée par de nombreuses études dont des méta analyses [5,6] et elles sont recommandées dans les Guides de meilleures pratiques en raison de leurs effets reconnus, soit la diminution des rechutes des personnes souffrant de psychose et une augmentation de leur soutien social [1,3,4].