Dataset Information

Perceptions of a short animated film on adverse childhood experiences: a mixed methods evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

An evaluation of a short animated film on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to explore attitudes and sentiment towards the film including, for a subsample of professionals, associations between attitudes and personal experience of ACEs.

Design

Mixed-method exploratory design.

Setting

Professionals and the general public.

Participants

A short online survey with 239 professionals. Interaction and user sentiment towards with the film on social media (Twitter, YouTube).

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Survey: participants' attitudes towards the film including feelings invoked, learning gained and ACE count prevalence. Twitter user and YouTube viewer sentiment (positive, negative or neutral) and interaction (likes, retweets or comments) with the film.

Results

Attitudes to the film were positive: 94.1% and 93.7%, respectively, agreed that it provided a helpful explanation of ACEs and trusted that the film was credible. Of those who reported ACE exposure, 88.9% agreed that those with ACEs would benefit from watching the film. Despite 50.6% reporting that the film had made them feel sad or upset, the majority (66.4%) reported they found the film hopeful or encouraging. Across 358 publicly available tweets from 313 users, 39.1% of tweets expressed positive sentiment, with only 1.4% negative (59.5% neutral). However, there was no association between tweet sentiment and interaction. Thirteen YouTube versions of the film received 171 812 views, 97.3% (n=889/914) ratings were positive (ie, 'thumbs up').

Conclusions

Despite being emotionally arousing, many professionals reflected positive impacts of the film including a perceived increased ability to discuss ACEs. Public sentiment demonstrated a positive reaction to and acceptability of the film. Understanding the professional and public response to materials developed to increase ACE awareness, such as the film explored here, is important given the growing number of international movements which seek to increase ACE awareness, prevent ACEs and mitigate their lifelong negative effects.

SUBMITTER: Ford K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8372873 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on mental health, self-regulatory capacities, and overall resilience are well-known. Given such effects, ACEs may play a role in how individuals adjust to challenges later in life. Of interest in this study is the transition to university, a time of heightened stress when adapting to circumstances is required and when those with ACEs may need additional in-the-moment support to exercise resilience. A smartphone app may provide a worthwhile and readily accessible medium for a resilience intervention, provided behavioral outcomes are adequately evaluated.ObjectiveThis study evaluates the impact of an innovative, smartphone app-based resilience intervention. The JoyPop app was designed to promote resilience through the use of self-regulatory skills such as emotion regulation and executive functioning. Among a sample of first-year undergraduate students, we explored whether use of the app would be associated with positive changes in resilience and related outcomes, and whether these benefits were influenced by level of childhood adversity.MethodsParticipants (N=156) were requested to use the JoyPop app for 4 weeks, at least twice daily. Changes in resilience, emotion regulation, executive functioning, and depression were assessed after 2 and 4 weeks of app usage using multilevel modeling.ResultsThe sample of 156 participants included 123 females and 33 males, with a mean age of 19.02 years (SD 2.90). On average participants used the app on 20.43 of the possible 28 days (SD 7.14). App usage was associated with improvements in emotion regulation (χ21=44.46; P<.001), such that it improved by 0.25 points on the 18-point scale for each additional day of app usage, and symptoms of depression (χ21=25.12; P<.001), such that depression symptoms were reduced by .08 points on the 9-point scale with each additional day of app usage. An interaction between ACEs and days of app usage existed for emotion regulation, such that participants with more adversity evidenced a faster rate of change in emotion regulation (P=.02).ConclusionsResults highlight that daily incorporation of an app-based resilience intervention can help youth who have experienced adversity to improve emotion regulation skills and experience reductions in depression. The JoyPop app represents an important step forward in the integration of resilience intervention research with a technology-based medium that provides in-the-moment support.

Project description:BackgroundWeb-based peer support interventions have shown promise in reducing social isolation and social support deficits among informal caregivers, but little research has examined how caregivers use and perceive these interventions.ObjectiveIn this study, we examined utilization and perceptions of a Web-based social support intervention for informal caregivers of wounded, ill, and injured United States military service members and veterans.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study that used quantitative survey data and qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with informal caregivers enrolled in a Web-based peer support intervention to explore their use and perceptions of the intervention. The intervention was delivered via a website that featured interest groups organized around specific topics, webinars, webchats, and messaging functionality and was moderated by professionally trained peers. This study occurred in the context of a quasi-experimental outcome evaluation of the intervention, where intervention participants were compared with a group of military caregivers who were not enrolled in the intervention.ResultsSurvey findings indicated that caregivers used the website infrequently, with 60.7% (128/211) visiting the website once a month or less, and passively, with a minority (32/144, 22.2%) of users (ie, those who had visited the website at least once during the past 3 months, N=144) posting comments or links to the network. Nonetheless, most users (121/144, 84.0%) endorsed moderate or greater satisfaction with the website on the survey, and focus group and interview participants reported benefiting sufficiently from passive use of the website (eg, reading posts). Quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that users viewed the website primarily as a source of informational support. Among 63.2% (91/144) of users who completed the survey, the most commonly reported network-related activity was obtaining information from the network's resource library, and focus group and interview participants viewed the network primarily as an informational resource. Focus group and interview participants expressed an unmet need for emotional support and the desire for a more personal touch in the forms of more active engagement with other caregivers in the network and the creation of local, in-person support groups for caregivers.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that Web-based peer support interventions may lend themselves better to the provision of informational (vs emotional) support and may need to be supplemented by in-person peer support groups to better meet caregivers' needs for emotional support.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate patients' experiences of the choice of general practitioner (GP) practice pilot. DESIGN:Mixed-method, cross-sectional study. SETTING:Patients in the UK National Health Service (NHS) register with a general practice responsible for their primary medical care and practices set geographic boundaries. In 2012/2013, 43 volunteer general practices in four English NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) piloted a scheme allowing patients living outside practice boundaries to register as an out of area patient or be seen as a day patient. PARTICIPANTS:Analysis of routine data for 1108 out of area registered patients and 250 day patients; postal survey of out of area registered (315/886, 36%) and day (64/188, 34%) patients over 18?years of age, with a UK mailing address; comparison with General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS); semistructured interviews with 24 pilot patients. RESULTS:Pilot patients were younger and more likely to be working than non-pilot patients at the same practices and reported generally more or at least as positive experiences than patients registered at the same practices, practices in the same PCT and nationally, despite belonging to subgroups of the population who typically report poorer than average experiences. Out of area patients who joined a pilot practice did so: after moving house and not wanting to change practice (26.2%); for convenience (32.6%); as newcomers to an area who selected a practice although they lived outside its boundary (23.6%); because of dissatisfaction with their previous practice (13.9%). Day patients attended primarily on grounds of convenience (68.8%); 51.6% of the day patient visits were for acute infections, most commonly upper respiratory infections (20.4%). Sixty-six per cent of day patients received a prescription during their visit. CONCLUSIONS:Though the 12-month pilot was too brief to identify all costs and benefits, the scheme provided a positive experience for participating patients and practices.