Conference format: Bratislava (Slovakia) and online
Facilitators: Marta Marques & Angel Chater
Regular fee: €250 (online TBC)
Fee waiver: Please contact us (ehps.synergy@gmail.com) for a reduced fee (€150) if you are a member of a member of a lower-middle-income country (For a list of eligible countries click on the following link: worldbank rating)
Please apply here: Google Forms Link
Application deadline: 09/05/22
Event dates: Monday 22^nd August and Tuesday 23^rd August 2022.
Title: Behavioural science and public health: Enhancing impact through policy and practice during COVID-19 and beyond

Behavioural scientists, and in particular health psychologists, have been called to action during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Their involvement in advisory groups for governments, regional and local authorities, health agencies and international bodies is noteworthy. They have identified successful ways to collaborate, through for example, the use of open science frameworks, crowdsourcing and synthesizing of evidence, and open public health forums for co-creation and sharing best practice. This has enabled the rapid production of  guidance and recommendations  for policy makers and public health officials on how to influence disease prevention behaviours effectively.  While this has maximized the potential to impact policy and practice, these advancements come with numerous challenges. Sharing international experiences (e.g methodologies, best practices) and establishing international collaborations and positions, can help to overcome such challenges, which can be supported by formal organizations, such as the European Health Psychology Society.

The objectives of this EHPS SYNERGY Expert Meeting are to:

1. Share international experiences in advising governments, policy makers and public health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies.
2. Identify ways in which behavioural science can inform policy and decision making, and pathways to achieve it
3. Generate a position statement paper on the role of behavioural sciences and health psychology in tackling global public health challenges
4. Establish an EHPS network/SIG on the topic.

For further information please contact: ehps.synergy@gmail.com

Conference format: Online
Facilitators: Dominika Kwasnicka and Robbert Sanderman
Regular fee: €50
Fee waiver: Please contact us (ehps.synergy@gmail.com) for a reduced fee (€30) if you are a member of a member of a lower-middle-income country (For a list of eligible countries click on the following link: worldbank rating)
Please apply here: Google Forms Link
Application deadline: 23/07/21
Event dates: Thursday 19th August and Friday 20th August, 9am CET start time. First session 9-11am. One-hour break. Second session 12-2pm CET. On Friday at 2pm social event.
Title: Open Digital Health – accelerating health promotion and treatment during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

 The aim of this Synergy Expert Meeting is to stimulate discussion around the implications and applications of Open Digital Health tools for health psychology research and practice. The objectives are to identify the most pertinent methods and strategies for applying and evaluating open digital health tools, especially the ones that are used in research, prevention and treatment in relation to health psychology domains.

We aim to jointly write a manuscript setting out the research agenda arrived at within the meeting, and to formulate plans for methodologically rigorous research to pursue this agenda. At the meeting we will debate methods for Open Digital Health tools validation and we will outline the best strategies to reuse them across different populations and settings. The participants of the meeting will discuss three key elements of open digital health tools’ sharing: (1) data; (2) content; (3) codes and design features. We will discuss and elaborate on the pros and cons of openly sharing each of them.

In the recommendations statement that we would ask the participants to co-author, we will outline from the perspective of health psychology:

1. What are the methods in our health psychology research toolkit that can be best used for testing and evaluating digital health tools?
2. What are the most feasible strategies to reuse digital health tools across contexts, populations and settings?
3. What are the main advantages and disadvantages of sharing (openly publishing) data, content and codes and design features of digital health tools?

We will give actionable suggestions for the researchers on the topic of what they can do in order to join the continuously growing Open Digital Health movement and we will also explore what pitfalls they need to be aware of and avoid. We will also position our discussion in the current context of COVID-19 pandemic, exploring how digital health tools rapidly gained popularity in 2020-2021 when world-wide health promotion and health treatment efforts shifted from face-to-face to online delivery. We will explore what are the opportunities and challenges of the Open Digital Health revolution that we are expecting in the coming years.

Set-up of a collaborative expert meeting: The meeting thread will largely depend on participants’ research interests and priorities, and we will ask attendees to share their key interests and topics they are the most interested in prior to the meeting. We will set up a meeting that is highly interactive and feasible to deliver online. In the past, Synergy Expert Meetings were two-day events that aimed to enhance networking, progressing of ideas and in-person interactions. This year will be no different, although we will use the internet as a communication medium. The participants of the meeting will be asked to fully commit to the meeting, they will receive an information and care pack before the meeting with relevant materials and items needed for the meeting.

Activities: Staying online for prolonged times is not ideal for mental and physical health, therefore, the meeting will be divided into short bursts, including information exchange, discussions, small group debates, brainstorm boards, and voting. In total we will have 4 x 2-hour sessions. We will have an active break in the middle of each day giving participants an hour to have lunch, go for a walk, stretch, do yoga etc. On the final day we will also encourage meeting participants to stay online after the meeting ends, for a social part of the meeting. This one is kept as a surprise and will be prepared by the Synergy Organising Board.

Expert meeting outcomes: The key outcome of the Synergy Expert Meeting is networking and creating opportunities for future collaborations and projects. The secondary outcome is a consensus statement. We are keen to achieve the consensus on some of the issues discussed and as customary for the Synergy Expert Meeting we would like to collaboratively write a consensus statement (to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal) that will summarise the meeting outcomes together with all meeting participants and with the Open Digital Health leadership team. We expect that people who are experts in digital health will attend the meeting. Please tell us about your expertise on the topic when you fill in your application form.

Facilitators

Dominika Kwasnicka (University of Melbourne and SWPS University) and Robbert Sanderman (University of Groningen and University of Twente) are both Directors of Open Digital Health Foundation. This year they jointly co-edited a book “Psychological Insights for Understanding COVID-19 and Health” (Routledge, 2021). They have both been strongly involved in the EHPS, Dominika is a past Chair of Synergy and a current Executive Board Member of the EHPS EC and Robbert is a Fellow and Past President of the Society. They are both passionate about making digital health more accessible, more scalable and more equal for all. This year Synergy Expert Meeting will also have five co-facilitators, other acting Directors of the Open Digital Health Foundation who will join the group of experts and will lead small group discussions and debates: Gill ten Hoor (University of Maastricht), Olga Perski (University College London), Jan Keller (Freie Universität Berlin), Gjalt Jorn Peters (Open University, the Netherlands), and Sebastian Potthoff (Northumbria University). They are all digital health experts and long-term active members and supporters of the EHPS.

Description: Digital health tools, defined broadly as any technology-supported tools used to promote health and wellbeing, can improve disease prevention and healthcare delivery at the population-level. These may include remote consultations, smartphone apps, websites, wearables, and external monitors. Digital health tools are rapidly becoming a norm in healthcare provision but their proliferation poses multiple challenges. The omnipresence of mobile and wearable devices gives them the potential to effectively deliver health promotion interventions and support behaviour change. This potential is widely recognised by public health bodies across the globe, with national and international policy efforts to stimulate digital health innovation and regulation. The COVID-19 pandemic has further emphasised the urgency of a digital health revolution, with digital health tools touted as a vital means to alleviate pressure on health and social care systems.

The potential of digital health tools notwithstanding, key issues lie in their evaluation and scalability: although some tools are clearly effective, their robust evaluation and successful implementation remain limited to specific geographical settings and specific diseases. Consequently, digital health tools have yet to significantly impact health and wellbeing at the population level (Gordon et al, NPJ Digital Medicine, 2020). To achieve their full potential, digital health tools need to be better evaluated, integrated and effectively scaled. This Synergy Expert meeting will aim to address two specific, closely connected issues that will be explored and discussed during the meeting:

(1) Fit-for-purpose validation is lacking. Although a plethora of digital health tools are available on the market, only a fraction of these has been rigorously evaluated in clinical trials (Zhao et al., JMIR, 2016). Data from IQVIA confirms this – as of 2017, only 0.18% of 325,000 published health apps on consumer platforms had undergone formative evaluation. Although early iterations of evidence standards frameworks for digital health are available from institutions such as the European Commission, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and the US Food and Drug Administration, the number of digital health tools that have undergone rigorous evaluation is low. The underlying problem is that the randomised controlled trial (RCT) is seen as the gold-standard evaluation method. Although RCTs are powerful, they are not always fit-for-purpose in the context of digital health tools. The lengthy, costly and strict setup of RCTs somewhat contradicts the intrinsic qualities of digital health tools, including their speed of development, affordability, agility and relatively fast real-world use. There is hence an urgent need to supplement and expand the toolbox of methods available for evaluating the effectiveness of digital health tools.

(2) Digital health tools are not reused in different contexts and populations. This drastically limits the health and societal impact of the international digital health community. In practice, the duplication of efforts and development of new tools from scratch means time and resources are often wasted (e.g., converting sensor input to relevant self-monitoring data, creating feedback algorithms, developing persuasive design elements or tailored content). This duplication of effort is particularly wasteful in the context of digital health tools: a key advantage of digital health tools is their potential for reuse, either as a whole or in part, as they are typically modular in structure with source code, content, and algorithms easy to share, modify or build onto.

The interconnection between the lack of fit-for-purpose validation methods (the first issue) and appropriate reuse (the second issue) becomes apparent when considering the following: digital health tools are typically validated in specific contexts, i.e., in a specific country/region within a specific healthcare system and/or with a small subgroup of patients (partially because of the costs of RCTs). In addition, none of the extant curated health app portals and repositories (e.g., the UK National Health Service’s Apps Library) include direct links to the underlying evidence and/or well-defined descriptions of the contexts in which they were developed and evaluated (e.g., using the TIDieR checklist, Hoffmann et al., BMJ, 2014). For developers, researchers, clinicians, payers, and users, it is hence currently impossible to assess which of the myriad available digital health tools is appropriate for their specific purpose. Consequently, many developers and researchers choose to build a new tool from scratch, thus resulting in a highly fragmented digital health ecosystem with poorly validated and often not scalable digital health tools. The aim of the Open Digital Health initiative is to give these digital health tools ‘a second life’ by promoting the reuse of existing evidence-based tools and their application across different contexts and settings. We expect this will ultimately help decrease costs and increase the reach of existing digital health tools. By doing so, the Open Digital Health team aims to systematise, better integrate and scale existing digital health tools nationally and internationally.

Selected references:

• Sullivan, I., DeHaven, A., & Mellor, D. (2019). Open and reproducible research on open science framework. Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques, 18(1), e32.
• Nosek, B. A. (2014). Improving my lab, my science with the open science framework. APS Observer, 27(3).
• Laffey, J. G., & Kavanagh, B. P. (2018). Negative trials in critical care: why most research is probably wrong. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 6(9), 659-660.
• Nosek, Brian A., George Alter, George C. Banks, Denny Borsboom, Sara D. Bowman, Steven J. Breckler, Stuart Buck et al. “Promoting an open research culture.” Science 348, no. 6242 (2015): 1422-1425.

For further information please contact: ehps.synergy@gmail.com

PROMOTING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY IN HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PUBLISHING

Conference Venue: National University of Ireland Galway

Facilitators: Professor Gerjo Kok, Professor Aleksandra Luszczynska, Professor Charles Abraham, and Dr Gjalt-Jorn Peters

Regular fee: €250

Reduced fee: €150 (for all participants working in countries that are ranked low income or lower middle income. For a list of eligible countries click on the following link: worldbank ranking)

APPLICATION Deadline extended to 31 May: Click here to apply for this Expert Meeting

Description:

As a scientific society, the European Health Psychology Society has influence on scientific practices, and one of the instruments we have available are our publishing policies. Such policies can be crafted to minimize questionable research practices. For example, deliberately adjusting or misrepresenting statistical analyses to mislead the audience into thinking that a study’s outcomes were different from what the data suggest is clearly wrong. Journals can take a number of steps to make such strategies hard or impossible. On the other hand, many researchers who engage in questionable research practices do so with the best of intentions. Which policies would be constructive policies for the EHPS journals to adopt? Should Full Disclosure (publishing of protocols, materials, stimuli, data, analysis scripts, and output) be enforced? Should studies that were not preregistered still be accepted? Are publishing policies the way to go at all? Which other instruments can the EHPS use to promote scientific integrity in health psychology? This Expert Meeting will be used to discuss whether the EHPS, as a society, has a role in promoting scientific integrity in health psychology, and if so, what. The product will be a proposal to the executive committee and the journal editors.

The schedule will be determined partly based on the expertise of those attending. The first day will be focused on Questionable Research Practices, especially those particularly prominent in Health Psychology. The second day will be focused on remedies to optimise the scientific integrity of health psychology, such as can be employed in supervision of PhD. candidates and other colleagues, publishing policies, and societal codes of conduct. We will circulate a number of blog posts (and some brief papers) that will briefly be summarized when we start with the Expert Meeting to provide some background, specifically (this list will probably be extended):

• Simmons, Nelson & Simonsohn (2011) False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant (paper)
• Janz (2015) Is withholding your data simply bad science, or should it fall under scientific misconduct? (blog post)
• Lebel & Scheel (2017) Need for New Code of Ethics Compliance for Professional Researchers in Era of Hyper-Competitive High-Stake Academic Culture (blog post)
• Schimmack (2015) Questionable Research Practices: Definition, Detect, and Recommendations for Better Practices (blog post)
• Gelman & Loken (2013) The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead

MOVING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE: NOVEL HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE

Conference Venue (Via Ugo Bassi, University of Padova), Italy; 28th & 29th August 2017

Facilitators: Dr Molly Byrne (National University of Ireland, Galway) and Dr Justin Presseau (University of Ottawa)

Regular fee: €250

Reduced fee: €150 (for all participants working in countries that are ranked low income or lower middle income. For a list of eligible countries click on the following link: worldbank ranking)

Please apply here: Application Form (Application deadline: 14.05.2017)

Expert meeting description:

Implementation Science is a multidisciplinary field of research focused on understanding how to move research evidence into routine healthcare (Eccles & Mittman, 2006). As is the case with many fields and across many countries, Health Psychology generates a tremendous amount of research evidence, with systematic reviews now highlighting effective Health Psychology-based interventions for promoting behavior change and for improving health processes and outcomes. However, it is not clear to what extent this evidence is being implemented into routine care to benefit and impact patients and populations. There is a real opportunity to draw upon the insights developed within Implementation Science to inform the development and evaluation of interventions to implement effective Health Psychology-based interventions. Implementation Science also draws upon theories and methods across a range of disciplines, including Health Psychology, to inform understanding and promoting the uptake of scientific evidence into health services to improve health. There is a real opportunity for novel theoretical and methodological insights developed within Health Psychology to further contribute to developing the still nascent field of Implementation Science

This Synergy expert meeting aims to bring together health psychologists with experience in implementation research to directly consider the further potential relationship between Implementation Science and Health Psychology. More specifically, we aim to:

1. take stock of the current state of Implementation Science and what Health Psychology is currently contributing to the field of Implementation Science,
2. use the experiences and expertise of participants to identify the unique challenges relevant to implementation of Health Psychology interventions, and
3. generate solutions to these challenges.

Format of the expert meeting:

Day 1 (am): Introductions from participants and presentations on participants’ experiences of health psychology and implementation science – 5 minute presentations, with optional slides (max 5)

Day 1 (pm): What can Health Psychology contribute to Implementation Science?

Day 2 (am): What can Implementation Science contribute to Health Psychology?

Day 2 (pm): Focus on outputs; Discussion around strategies to promote longer term collaborations between meeting participants within the EHPS, and promote networks in Health Psychology Implementation Science, including discussion of possible international funding opportunities.

Outcome

We aim to produce two outputs: one paper targeting Health Psychologists and one targeting an Implementation Science audience

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND HEALTH: COLLABORATIVE AND DYADIC APPROACHES

The 14th Synergy Expert Meeting (EM) takes place directly before the EHPS annual conference.It aims to advance the standard of work within health psychology by pooling expertise, sharing critical evaluations, and stimulating networking and collaborative research between researchers in an informal and supportive atmosphere. Thus, the delegates play an active role in the discussions and the sharing of expertise, and therefore should be able to contribute to the meeting.

WHY SHOULD I ATTEND THIS YEAR’S EM?

The 2016 Synergy EM aims to survey the state of the art of research on close relationships and health regarding theory, design, and statistical models in observational and intervention research. In compiling the relevant questions and existing evidence the EM will move the field of research on social relationships and health forward. As final outcome of the EM, facilitators and delegates will compose and co-author a consensus-based position paper. We especially welcome senior researchers with substantial experience in conducting studies in close relationships and health, to join the EM.

WHERE AND HOW TO PARTICIPATE?

This year’s Synergy EM will be held on the 22^nd and 23^rd of August 2016 in Aberdeen, Scotland. To apply please complete and submit your application following the instructions at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/synergy-em-2016

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

There is one grant available for attendance at the Synergy EM. This grant is not restricted to junior researchers. Senior researchers, which are Synergy’s target population, are especially encouraged to apply as well in the case of financial need. See: http://ehps.net/grants for further details.

DEADLINES

Apply for the Expert Meeting by 30th April 2016 20th May 2016

Apply for Synergy grant by 13rd May 2016 20th May 2016

MHEALTH FOR BEHAVIOUR CHANGE: OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

MEETING DESCRIPTION

Over the past decade, digital interventions have become an increasingly widely used mode of delivery for health-related behaviour change interventions, including public health interventions (e.g. smoking cessation, weight management, physical activity promotion, alcohol reduction), illness management interventions (e.g. to manage asthma, pain and fatigue) and health professional resources (e.g. to manage diabetes jointly with patients).  There is evidence that internet-based interventions can support people to change their behaviour (Kohl, Crutzen, & de Vries, 2013; Webb, Joseph, Yardley, & Michie, 2010).  Until recently, these interventions have principally been designed for access through a PC.  However, with the rapid uptake of smartphones and tablet computers (now used by 1 in 5 people worldwide) attention is shifting to the potential of mobile digital delivery of healthcare support – mhealth (Bacigalupo et al., 2013; Schueller, Muñoz, & Mohr, 2013).

POTENTIAL OF MHEALTH

Mhealth interventions are potentially attractive to users as they can provide convenient, private, instant access to automated, expert and peer support to help achieve a wide variety of behavioural goals. Their value for behavioural researchers is that they have the potential to collect detailed longitudinal data about the process of behaviour change from a vastly larger sample of the population than has previously been possible, permitting unprecedented analysis of the factors influencing behaviour change.

CHALLENGES OF MHEALTH

With so many potential mhealth providers, the market has already become saturated with untested and probably unhelpful applications (Azar et al., 2013; Pagoto, Schneider, Jojic, DeBiasse, & Mann, 2013). Rigorous evaluation using experimental designs is problematic because of the opportunity for participants to access other relevant applications. Mobile technology is advancing very rapidly, providing new functionality, that means that lengthy study designs with long-term follow up to establish maintenance may not be appropriate.

FOCUS AND STRUCTURE OF EXPERT MEETING

DAY 1:  MHEALTH INTERVENTION:  DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY

1.   State-of-the art

• What is the potential of mhealth for facilitating behaviour change?  What new opportunities does mhealth offer for delivering interventions? What is the evidence that mhealth delivery can improve on other methods?
• What are the challenges to using mhealth for facilitating behaviour change?  What particular problems are posed by using mhealth for delivering interventions (e.g. for reach and adherence)?

2.  Future directions

• Given the opportunities and challenges identified in the first session, what are the most promising directions for future mhealth interventions?
• What methods and resources are required to optimise mhealth intervention delivery?   What new technological developments and business models are needed?

DAY 2:  MHEALTH RESEARCH:  DESIGN AND EVALUATION

1.   State-of-the art

• What is the potential of mhealth for understanding behaviour change?  What new opportunities does mhealth offer for researching behaviour change?
• What are the methodological challenges for evaluating mhealth interventions (e.g. dropout, difficulty of obtaining objective verification)?

2.   Future directions

• Given the opportunities and challenges identified in the first session, what are the most promising directions for future mhealth research?
• How can we optimise mhealth research, and what new design and evaluation methods are needed?

FACILITATORS  (FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE FACILITATORS CAN BE FOUND AT THEIR WEBSITES)

• Lucy Yardley leads the extensive ‘LifeGuide’ and ‘UBhave’ programmes of digital research, developing and evaluating interventions for a wide range of health problems
• Susan Michie has an international reputation for research focused on the design, delivery, uptake and impact of behaviour change interventions related to health
• Robert West has world-leading expertise in tobacco studies and has developed novel digital interventions for smoking cessation

MEETING OUTPUT

The aim of this expert meeting is to work towards a publishable output reflecting expert consensus regarding opportunities, challenges and future directions for mhealth intervention and research.  To ensure that all participants are able to contribute to this process we will therefore select a maximum of 20 participants with experience in research on digital interventions.

APPLICATION

The applications for this workshop have closed.

REFERENCES

Azar, K. M., Lesser, L. I., Laing, B. Y., Stephens, J., Aurora, M. S., Burke, L. E., & Palaniappan, L. P. (2013). Mobile applications for weight management: theory-based content analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45, 583-589.

Bacigalupo, R., Cudd, P., Littlewood, C., Bissell, P., Hawley, M. S., & Buckley Woods, H. (2013). Interventions employing mobile technology for overweight and obesity: an early systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Obesity Reviews, 14, 279-291.

Kohl, L. F., Crutzen, R., & de Vries, N. K. (2013). Online prevention aimed at lifestyle behaviors: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, e146.

Pagoto, S., Schneider, K., Jojic, M., DeBiasse, M., & Mann, D. (2013). Evidence-based strategies in weight-loss mobile apps. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45, 576-582.

Schueller, Stephen M., Muñoz, Ricardo F., & Mohr, David C. (2013). Realizing the Potential of Behavioral Intervention Technologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 478-483.

Webb, T.L., Joseph, J., Yardley, L., & Michie, S. (2010). Using the Internet to promote health behavior change: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12, e4.

IMPLEMENTATION INTENTION AND ACTION PLANNING INTERVENTIONS IN HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY: EVALUATING THE STATE OF THE ART AND DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR BEST PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

EXPERT MEETING DESCRIPTION

There has been a rapid increase in the use of planning techniques in interventions to promote health-related behaviour (Abraham, Kok, Schaalma, & Luszczynska, 2011). The proliferation of interventions using planning has largely been a direct response to the considerable literature which has recognised the limitations of intentions as a predictor of behaviour (Dekker, 2008; Sheeran, 2002; Webb & Sheeran, 2006), the so-called intention-behaviour ‘gap’. Recent theoretical models incorporating both motivational and volitional phases have sought to resolve this issue by examining the role that furnishing intentions with planning exercises plays in improving the link between intentions and behaviour (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; Schwarzer, 2001; Sheeran, Milne, Webb, & Gollwitzer, 2005). Prominent among these planning interventions are implementation intention and action planning techniques. These techniques aim to bolster or augment intentions with means to promote recall and enactment of the intended behaviour.

These planning techniques are two of the most recognised and frequently-applied components in health behaviour interventions (Adriaanse, Vinkers, De Ridder, Hox, & De Wit, 2011; Bélanger-Gravel, Godin, & Amireault, 2013; Webb, Sniehotta, & Michie, 2010). There are numerous reasons why these techniques have attracted so much attention: (1) they are steeped in established social psychological theory, have been embedded in popular and well-cited theories of social cognition applied in health contexts such as the theory of planned behaviour, and address a commonly-known limitation of these theories (i.e., the intention-behaviour ‘gap’); (2) they have intuitive appeal in their parsimony; (3) they have low response burden making their promulgation through multiple modes of delivery comparatively easy; and (4) they are low-cost. Above all, there is growing support for their effectiveness in engendering behaviour change health-related contexts as stand-alone intervention strategies or as part of more elaborate interventions involving multiple behaviour-change techniques. Implementation intention and action planning interventions have been shown to be effective in changing diverse behaviours such as physical activity (Arbour & Martin Ginis, 2009; Barg et al., 2012; Conner, Sandberg, & Norman, 2010; Gellert, Ziegelmann, Lippke, & Schwarzer, 2012; Luszczynska, 2006; Milne, Orbell, & Sheeran, 2002; Prestwich et al., 2012; Prestwich, Lawton, & Conner, 2003), healthy and unhealthy eating (Adriaanse, de Ridder, & de Wit, 2009; Adriaanse et al., 2010; Armitage, 2007; Chapman, Armitage, & Norman, 2009; Prestwich, Ayres, & Lawton, 2008; Sullivan & Rothman, 2008), smoking (Armitage, 2008; Armitage & Arden, 2008), alcohol consumption (Armitage, 2009; Hagger et al., 2012), breast self-examination (Orbell, Hodgkins, & Sheeran, 1997; Prestwich et al., 2005), rehabilitation from injury (Scholz, Sniehotta, Schuz, & Oeberst, 2007), vitamin consumption (Sheeran & Orbell, 1999), cancer screening behaviours (Browne & Chan, 2012; Rutter, Steadman, & Quine, 2006; Sheeran & Orbell, 2000), workplace health and safety (Sheeran & Silverman, 2003), vaccine uptake (Milkman, Beshears, Choi, Laibson, & Madrian, 2011; Payaprom, Bennett, Alabaster, & Tantipong, 2011), contraception use (de Vet et al., 2011; Martin, Sheeran, Slade, Wright, & Dibble, 2009; Teng & Mak, 2011), and dental health behaviours (Orbell & Verplanken, 2010; Schuz, Wiedemann, Mallach, & Scholz, 2009). In addition, systematic reviews have confirmed the effect of implementation intentions on behaviour in multiple behavioural domains (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006) and in specific health-related behavioural domains such as physical activity (Bélanger-Gravel et al., 2013) and healthy eating (Adriaanse et al., 2011).

However, while there is growing support for these planning interventions in the health-behaviour literature, a number of limitations in the research have been noted. For example, the meta-analytic findings indicate substantial heterogeniety in the effect. In other words, there is a lot of variation in the strength of the effects of planning interventions, implying that their effectiveness varies across studies. This heterogeneity presents considerable challenges when attempting to systematically evaluate the evidence in terms of the effectiveness of planning interventions in health behavioural contexts. Possible reasons for the heterogeniety may be variations in study design and execution. For example, studies differ in their definition and operationalisation of planning procedures and their proposed mechanisms for the effect (e.g., mediation analyses). The heterogeneity in the effect sizes and lack of consensus in the definitions and operationalisation of planning interventions in health contexts present considerable problems to researchers attempting to develop interventions to change health behaviour adopting planning techniques.

The aim of this Synergy expert meeting is to stimulate discussion and debate of the evidence on planning interventions in health behaviour. The goal will be to develop a consensus on the most effective means to implement and evaluate planning interventions to move the field forward and resolve some of the theoretical, operational and methodological shortcomings of previous research. Specifically, the expert meeting discussion will focus on, but not be limited to: evaluating the research evidence on interventions adopting planning components; identifying the common features and differences of planning interventions in terms of operationalisation, design, measurement, mechanisms, and evaluation of planning components; identifying the salient gaps in the literature; formulating possible guidelines for good practice; and identifying priority areas for future research that will improve understanding of planning interventions in the field of health behaviour.

SET-UP OF THE COLLABORATIVE EXPERT MEETING

We will ask researchers to bring their own experiences of intervention research (including implementation intentions and action planning techniques) to the expert meeting, particularly the scripts and methods they have used in their interventions themselves, and the source material for their interventions. The idea would be to use these as a basis for discussion of variations and consistencies in the current literature and practice of planning interventions. We would also ask participants to report on the success of their manipulations, any failed replications, and feedback and reports from participants on the use of the techniques. This would enable the identification of strengths of current descriptions of these techniques in the literature and the limitations, omissions, lack of clarity, and needs for future research. Each half day of the expert meeting will include a particular theme (outlined below) that will be introduced by the facilitators, an initial exercise where participants will work in small groups on a particular aspect of the theme, and then a collaborative session where each group feeds back to the main group on their findings. The feedback session will be followed by a general discussion of the main issues, with all participants encouraged to contribute. Ideas and points will be recorded for the group using a whiteboard. Each session will be followed by a summary session to finalise the points and ask for additions. The points from each session will be typed up and added to a set of summary notes. At the end of the expert meeting, a final summing-up session using the notes as a stimulus will aim to arrive at a consensus in terms of the definition, contents, appropriate study design (e.g., intervention components, measures, and analyses), and key issues in need of research with respect to planning interventions.

PROGRAM AND THEMES

• Defining and conceptualising of planning interventions (e.g., distinguishing between types of planning intervention and their role in social-cognitive models), how should they be operationalised, and what are the conceptual differences between types of planning e.g. implementation intentions and action planning.
• Format and measurement of planning techniques (e.g., mode of delivery, measurement effects, format, use of examples, self- vs. other-defined plans).
• Mechanisms and processes underpinning planning technqiues (e.g., the role of habit, moderators of planning intervention effects, forming multiple plans, planning interventions for low intenders).
• Design issues around planning techniques and interventions based on them (e.g., sustainability of behaviour change, intervention fidelity).
• The way forward: what would a ‘gold’ standard design for a planning intervention study look like?

FACILITATORS

Martin S. Hagger, Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine Research Group, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth Australia
Aleks Luszczynska, Trauma, Health, & Hazards Center, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, USA and Warsaw School of Social Psychology, Wroclaw, Poland

Martin Hagger (Curtin University, Australia) and Aleks Luszczynska (University of Colorado, Colorado Springs) both have considerable experience with the use of implementation intentions and action planning interventions in health behaviour. In addition, they have experience in running expert meetings and roundtables on the subject of planning at two EHPS conferences (Crete, 2011 and Bordeaux, 2013). John De Wit (UNSW, Australia), who also has a wealth of expertise in both the theoretical and application of interventions, including the use of planning techniques, in a number of health behaviour contexts, has also agreed to contribute to the expert meeting as he will be in attendance and could serve as an additional facilitator in the event of a large attendance. We also plan on inviting participants who have experience intervention design and other behaviour-change techniques to offer different and complementary perspectives.

RELEVANCE

An increasing number of studies in many health behavioural contexts are adopting planning interventions, and many of the EHPS members will be affiliated to labs and research groups that are currently using at least one form of planning as part of their interventions. There will also be researchers with links to policymakers and practitioners interested in how planning interventions can be most effectively employed on a practical level in the field to maximize health behavior maintenance. The topic is, therefore, a very pertinent one for many members of the society and this is an opportunity for an in-depth discussion of the issues surrounding planning interventions and their implementation that will not only benefit the participants, but will also provide consensus recommendations for non-attending members interested in using planning interventions in their research.

COSTS

Note that at this moment, the price is not yet known. We can guarantee however, that the price will not exceed € 250,-. We will update the price here as soon as possible, and will of course mail everybody who has already applied at that point. Note that participants from those countries listed under the categories low-income economies, lower-middle-income economies and upper-middle-income economies by the World Bank are qualified for reduced fees, which are half the regular fee. A list of these countries is available here.

GRANTS

A small number of grants are available for attendants of the Synergy expert meeting against expert meeting registration, conference fee, accommodation and travel. See the grants page for further details.

SELECTED REFERENCES (SEE PDF FOR FULL LIST)

Hagger, M. S., Lonsdale, A., Koka, A., Hein, V., Pasi, H., Lintunen, T., et al. (2012). An intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in undergraduate students using implementation intentions and mental simulations: A cross-national study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 82-96. doi: 10.1007/s12529-011-9163-8
Luszczynska, A. (2006). An implementation intentions intervention, the use of a planning strategy, and physical activity after myocardial infarction. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 900-908. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.043

METHODS FOR CHANGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR HEALTH: INFLUENCING ORGANISATIONS, KEY ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS

WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION

In planning health promotion interventions, theories from the behavioral sciences are applied to, first, understand behavior and, second, change behavior. Such interventions apply theoretical methods for change, directed at the target population or at the environment. A theoretical method, or behavior change technique, is a general technique or process for influencing changes in the determinants of behavior of the target population or of behavior of the environmental decision maker (Bartholomew, et al., 2011; Abraham & Michie, 2008). Practical applications are specific techniques for practical use of theoretical methods in ways that fit the intervention population and the context in which the intervention will be conducted (Bartholomew, et al., 2011).

There is an increasing interest in systematic descriptions or taxonomies of health promotion interventions, the theoretical methods they contain, and the determinants that are targeted for change (Stavri & Michie, 2012). However, most of these taxonomies focus on individual behavior change and only a few also include behavior change of environmental agents (Bartholomew, et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2009) at the interpersonal, organizational, community and policy levels. Moreover, translating methods into applications demands a sufficient understanding of the theory behind the method, especially the theoretical parameters under which the theoretical process is effective or not (Schaalma & Kok, 2009).

Environmental conditions are not likely to be under the direct control of the individuals at risk for the health problem. They are controlled by decision makers at different environmental levels, external agents such as peers, teachers, managers, and other gatekeepers (Kok et al., 2008). To select methods for environmental conditions, the first thing to do is to find out who may be in a position to make the expected change. The planner has to identify the desired behaviors for the agent who will actually change the environmental condition. The health promoter then applies methods for influencing the determinants of the agent’s behavior using methods which are appropriate for changing determinants at environmental levels.

The focus of this Synergy workshop is on methods for environmental change.

All participants will be asked in advance to bring in their research and practice experiences, discussion topics, and successes and failures with trying to change environmental conditions for health. Every half day in the workshop includes an introduction in the theme, a brief theoretical background, followed by contributions from participants: empirical research examples, practical experiences, theoretical ideas and discussion. At the end of the workshop, a brief summary of the state of the art and the most promising venues for future research will be produced.

PROGRAM AND THEMES:

• Introduction in the ecological model of health promotion: agents at environmental levels;
• Theories about environmental levels: e.g. social network, organizational development, social action, agenda setting, and stakeholder theories;
• Theoretical methods for change (behavior change techniques) at environmental levels: theories, definitions, parameters and examples;
• Theoretical methods for change (behavior change techniques) at environmental levels: the role of individual level methods, bundling of methods, differences in targets, lack of clear parameters, measurements of change;
• Planning the implementation of health promotion interventions as an organizational change challenge; planning effect evaluation of environmental change.

FACILITATORS:

More information on the facilitators can be found at their websites (Gerjo Kok and Rob Ruiter) and at Google Scholar Citations (Gerjo Kok and Rob Ruiter).

COSTS:

Note that at this moment, the price is not yet known. We can guarantee however, that the price will not exceed € 250,-. We will update the price here as soon as possible, and will of course mail everybody who has already applied at that point. Note that participants from those countries listed under the categories low-income economies, lower-middle-income economies and upper-middle-income economies by the World Bank are qualified for reduced fees, which are half the regular fee. A list of these countries is available here.

GRANTS:

A small number of grants are available for attendants of the Synergy workshop against workshop registration, conference fee, accommodation and travel. See the grants page for further details.

REFERENCES:

• Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27, 379–387.
• Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., & Fernandez, M. E. (2011). Planning Health Promotion Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Khan, L. K., Sobush, K., Keener, D., Goodman, K., Lowry, A., Kakietek, J., et al. (2009). Recommended community strategies and measurements to prevent obesity in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58(RR07), 1–26.
• Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., Commers, M., & Smerecnik, C. (2008). The ecological approach in health promotion programs: A decade later. American Journal of Health Promotion, 22, 437–442.
• Schaalma, H. & Kok, G., 2009. Decoding health education interventions: The times are a-changin’ . Psychology & Health, 24, 5-9.
• Stavri, Z. & Michie, S. (2012). Classification systems in behavioural science: current systems and lessons from the natural, medical and social sciences. Health Psychology Review, 6, 113-140.

MIXED METHODOLOGY IN HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY: USING PRAGMATISM TO OVERCOME THE ‘IRRECONCILABLE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES’ BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS

WORKSHOP DETAILS

There have been debates for decades about whether we should use mixed methods, that is, qualitative and quantitative methods; those against often cite ‘irreconcilable epistemological differences’ and those in favour promote a ‘toolkit’ approach to choosing methods according to research question rather than theoretical underpinnings. Health Psychology research is primed for mixed methods because of the need to understand things at both the individual and the population level for it to be considered valid evidence that might be used to inform policy and practice.

This interactive workshop will bring together researchers with contrasting expertise to discuss the theoretical and practical elements of using both quantitative and qualitative methods in Health Psychology research. We will draw on Pragmatism’s functional definition of knowledge to overcome our epistemological differences and using innovative techniques (including conceptual encounter and dialogal research) we will work through theoretical and practical barriers to collaboratively create a working definition or ‘rough guide’ of mixed methodology in health psychology.

This workshop is key to the future of Health Psychology because of the readiness with which Health Psychology have welcomed qualitative methods, but also because Health Psychologists are often at the forefront of the development of innovative ways of conducting research within mixed discipline studies and applied settings. Health Psychology has a strong commitment to theory and rigour and so it makes perfect sense to ask Health Psychologists with expertise in these so-called opposing traditions to think openly and strategically about how we might successfully bridge the gap between epistemologies and move on to create the knowledge that will inform health care research and practice in the future.

AN INDICATION OF THE AREAS/TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED

MIXING METHODS IN HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY? – DAY 1

This will be a brief introduction to the workshop topic and dilemmas faced by contemporary health psychology researchers – presented by facilitators. A number of issues & dilemmas will be raised and small groups/individuals will be asked to reflect on these at the beginning, across the course of the workshop and at the end and will be asked to bring their reflections to the group at the end.

MIXING METHODOLOGIES, THEORIES & MODELS IN HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY – DAY 1/2

Facilitators will first introduce and present working definitions for epistemology, methodology, method, theory/theoretical model, quantitative and qualitative research. Contributors will then be asked to tell their story, i.e. where their ‘allegiance’ lies in terms of epistemology and quantitative v qualitative methods, theoretical models such as Theory of Planned Behaviour or Illness Representations, and their preferred methodology such as phenomenology, narrative or discursive psychology, action research. They will then be asked to define the guiding principles/central assumptions of each approach and they will be paired up with someone with a contrasting viewpoint.

During this activity we will use the conceptual encounter technique (De Rivera, 2006) which facilitates the ‘meeting of minds’ between people with opposed positions. A number of questions will be given to facilitate this process.

We will use these conceptual encounters to conduct a mapping exercise (not dissimilar from framework analysis) to determine where there may be overlap in terms of rationale, objectives, outcomes of research, impact on policy/practice of their particular approach to research.

USING PRAGMATISM’S FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF KNOWLEDGE TO BRING TOGETHER ‘OLD RIVALS’ IN HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY – DAY 2

Common barriers to mixing methods are ‘irreconcilable epistemological differences’. However, Pragmatism offers a different way of conceptualizing epistemology and our definitions of knowledge. The facilitators will give a short introduction to Pragmatism and its utility for mixing methods in health psychology (Yardley & Bishop, 2008). Contributors will then be asked to engage in activities based on the principles of dialogical research (Rowe & Leifer, 2006). In brief, this method enables a group of participants to work together in dialogue to construct a definition of ‘mixed methods methodology’ in health psychology. Results of all previous exercises during the workshop will be used to inform this process. Contributors will then be asked to present their group definition and the Synergy team as a whole will collate these definitions to create the living document to be used to disseminate the results of Synergy.

CREATING A ‘ROUGH GUIDE’ FOR MIXED METHODOLOGY STUDIES IN HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY – HALF-DAY 3

Results of Synergy will be disseminated in a living document. This document will include discussions about epistemology, theory, methodology, methods of data collection and analysis. A key component of this document will take the form of proposals for synthesizing findings from different components of the work. Yardley & Bishop (2008) propose a composite analysis, where different components of a study become a coherent whole rather than a disjointed set of discrete projects using different methods. This will be the final challenge of the Synergy contributors – to use their working definitions of mixed methods methodology and all they have learned through the course of the workshop to make proposals for how to achieve a composite analysis. We don’t expect an answer to this question but will aim to create a firm ground on which such proposals can be developed moving forward.

ASPECTS OF WORKSHOP WE WILL PROVIDE

Reading prior to workshop (to be confirmed nearer the time) including:

• Yardley, L. & Bishop, F. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: a Pragmatic approach. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage.
• Dures, E., Rumsey, N. & Morris, M. (2010). Mixed methods in Health Psychology: theoretical and practical considerations of the Third Paradigm. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(2), 332-341.
• Examples of mixed methods health psychology research from journal articles, tenders, successful bids.
• Resources – including references and websites
• Brief presentations used to introduce background and instructions for activities
• Facilitator skills to ensure active engagement from contributors

ASPECTS OF WORKSHOP TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY PARTICIPANTS

• Examples of mixed methods health psychology research from journal articles, tenders, successful bids from their own work
• Preparation: to reflect on their stance, identify their ‘allegiance’
• Expertise in a range of theoretical models, methodologies, methods of data collection and analysis
• Varied levels of experiences from PhD, post-doc through to mid-career and senior academics

More information on the main facilitator, Rachel Shaw, can be retrieved from http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lhs/staff/az-index/shawrl/.

TESTING THEORY AND INTERVENTION WITHIN INDIVIDUALS: THEORETICAL ISSUES AND THE USE OF N-OF-1 AND RELATED METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS

WORKSHOP DETAILS

WHAT IS THE FOCUS?

Many theories in health psychology attempt to explain changing aspects of individuals’ behaviour and most interventions attempt to change the behaviour of individuals. So, for example, theories suggests that people’s intentions to act are determined by their current beliefs or that levels of stress are determined by their current appraisal of the environment and interventions may seek to alter these beliefs or appraisals. However theories are mostly tested in between individual studies and it can be shown that theories that apparently apply across individuals do not apply within an individual, as they should. Likewise interventions are mostly tested in randomised trials involving many participants and the applicability of the intervention to the individual participant is difficult to determine.

The topics covered will include:

• Theory: Discussion of current theories and their use in explaining within and between person variation. The application of psychological theory to the behaviour of the individual. The workshop facilitators work in the areas of social cognition, disability and stress theory but will also draw on the expertise of the participants in other areas.
• Intervention: N-of-1 intervention designs will be discussed, and theoretical and practical issues of such interventions presented.
• Methods: The methods of studying the individual over time. We will emphasise the use of electronic based data capture methods such as PDAs and smartphones. Discussion of feasibility and acceptability.
• Statistical analysis: Analysing time series data. The issues raised by n-of-1 data and current methods of analysis will be presented and explored in practical work. We will also discuss methods of analysing the differences between individuals over time in group based studies using multilevel modelling.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Researchers interested in using theory and in developing methods of application and analysis at the individual level. Researchers familiar with single case methods and interested in using these methods to test theory and evaluate interventions. In this workshop we hope to attract health psychologists working both in theory and/or practice since the issues bear directly on both areas.

WHAT WILL WE DO?

The workshop will be very interactive with at least 50% of all sessions involving active participation in practical or group work and discussion. Participants will be encouraged to bring their own research questions and methodological issues for discussion at the workshop. In addition all participants will be invited to collect data on themselves for a 8 weeks prior to the workshop to gain insight into the problems of such data collection and the data will be used to demonstrate methods of analysis at the workshop. We will use internet based methods of data collection for this. The data will not be intrusive and will relate to Karasek’s demand control theory of work stress since it is probably applicable to all participants.

THE FACILITATORS

The workshop facilitators are all experienced in n-of-1 studies and in running workshops. Marie Johnston works integrating biomedical and behavioural theories of disability and has both run and attended previous Synergy workshops. Derek Johnston conducts n-of-1 and related studies of occupational stress using EMA and psychophysiological methods, analysing data using time series and multilevel modelling. Diane Dixon runs theory-based n-of-1 intervention studies to enhance physical activity. They have experience of running workshops together.

BEYOND TALK AND TEXT: STRETCHING AND ENRICHING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PRACTICE

BRIEF WORKSHOP OVERVIEW (SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS)

WORKSHOP DETAILS

WHAT IS THE FOCUS?

Qualitative research methodologies are becoming relatively common within health psychology, although their newness promotes a tendency for these methodologies and methods to be used in rather formulaic ways. This workshop challenges the formulaic use of methodology, promotes the use of more inventive and imaginative forms of qualitative research practice, and promotes innovation in planning and reporting qualitative research. The focus is on extending the boundaries and advancing the standard of work within the field. We will consider a wide range of recent developments in methodology – visual methods including photo-voice, photo-elicitation and graphic elicitation techniques, mobile research involving walking and go-along interviews, longitudinal research and multiple contacts, observational methods, drama and arts-based research practices, the involvement of time, space and materiality, as well as the use of multiple methodologies. The workshop will also consider the implications of these research approaches and methods for ethical practice and reflexivity, and examine innovative ways of reporting qualitative research.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

This workshop is suitable for researchers who have some experience in qualitative health research, and who are seeking to stretch and extend their knowledge of qualitative research in innovative directions. It is not necessary to have extensive experience in conducting qualitative research to attend, but the workshop is not intended as an entry-level course on qualitative research.

WHAT WILL WE DO?

The workshop will be run as a collaborative engagement, seeking to pool expertise, share ideas and critical evaluations, and stimulate networking. It will involve presentations by the facilitator on key issues – methods, data collection, data analysis, ethics, reflexivity, and reporting research – but a significant amount of time will be spent working in small groups to develop specific research projects brought by participants. Participants will collaboratively help to develop and critique one another’s projects, and each participant will have developed the completed draft of an innovative research proposal at the conclusion of the workshop.

THE SCHEDULED TIMETABLE:

Sunday 29, 13.30-17.30; Monday 30 and Tuesday 31, 09.30-17.30
A draft workshop overview (we may modify this as we go through the workshop sessions):
Day 1: will commence with introductions and an orientation to the workshop, an overview of the approaches we will take to qualitative researching, a presentation and discussion on recent innovative developments in qualitative methods, followed by presentations of participant’s project topics and ideas.
Day 2: the morning will commence with a presentation on data collection and management focusing on non-textual data; the remainder of the morning will involve small group work involving the development of participant projects and reporting back; the afternoon will start with another presentation and discussion about data analysis and reflexivity in research; this will be followed by further group work to refine and justify the methods to be used in research projects.
Day 3: the morning will commence with a presentation on challenges for research ethics and creative presentation of research findings, arising from the use of innovative methods; the balance of the morning will be small group work focusing on finalising the research projects, including ethics, data analyses and reporting; the afternoon will be spent on presenting and critiquing the projects. The workshop will close with a discussion to finalise how we report back into the conference.

WHAT SHOULD YOU BRING?

Please develop and bring a research topic, issue or proposal that you are currently planning, or one you are interested to develop, so that it can be worked up and developed collectively during the workshop. Participants will work collaboratively on these projects during the workshop with a view to developing them into finished research proposals.

HOW SHOULD YOU PREPARE?

Search out and determine the basic idea for your research topic, issue or proposal. Read some of the articles on the reading list, especially those that appear relevant for your project or those that particularly take your attention. Note that there is now a very wide range of published articles and books relevant to the topics of the workshop. Those suggested on the reading list involve only journal articles and not books, and are just a (somewhat esoteric) selection from the much more extensive reading list that will be issued during the workshop. Feel free to locate other readings of relevance and to bring references to the workshop so we can build up a wider reading list to share.

WHAT ARE THE EXPECTED OUTCOMES?

The outcomes are to:

• develop critical thinking about qualitative research in general;
• extend knowledge about and use of emerging and innovative qualitative research methodologies and methods;
• provide experience in developing, conducting and reporting more complex qualitative research;
• promote understanding of the value, and the implications of, a creative and reflexive approach to research practice; and
• facilitate networks and collaboration between qualitative health psychology researchers in Europe.

Finally, we will plan an innovative presentation showcasing the work developed from the workshop for the conference. There are various possibilities for this, so we will plan this collaboratively during the last phases of the workshop.

SOME SUGGESTED READINGS

Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9, 547-570.

Camic, P. M. (2008). Playing in the mud: Health psychology, the arts and creative approaches to health care. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 287-298.

Carpiano, R. M. (2008). Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & Place, 15, 263-272.

Crilly, N., Blackwell, A., & Clarkson, P. (2006). Graphic elicitation: Using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qualitative Research, 6, 341-366.

Catalani, C., & Minkler, M. (2009). Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior, 37, 424-451.

Clark, A., Prosser, J., & Wiles, R. (2010). Ethical issues in image-based research. Arts & Health, 2, 81-93.

Hawkes, G., Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. (2009). Risk and worry in everyday life: Comparing diaries and interviews as tools in risk perception research. Health, Risk & Society, 11, 209-230.

Keats, P. (2009). Multiple text analysis in narrative research: Visual, written, and spoken stories of experience. Qualitative Research, 9, 181-195.

Keightley, E. (2010). Remembering research: Memory and methodology in the social sciences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 55-70.

Mannay, D. (2010). Making the familiar strange: Can visual research methods render the familiar setting more perceptible? Qualitative Research, 10, 91-111.

Monrouxe, L. V. (2009). Solicited audio diaries in longitudinal narrative research: A view from inside. Qualitative Research, 9, 81-103.

Murray, M., & Gray, R. (2008). Health psychology and the arts: A conversation. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 147-153.

Pink, S. (2008). Mobilising visual ethnography: Making routes, making place and making images [27 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), Art. 36, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0803362.

Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (2005). ‘Thanks for the memory’: Memory books as a methodological resource in biographical research. Qualitative Research, 5, 201-219.

Rossiter, K., Kontos, P., Colantonio, A., Gilbert, J., Gray, J., & Keightley, M. (In press). Staging data: Theatre as a tool for analysis and knowledge transfer in health research. Social Science & Medicine [Available through online first].

Umoquit, M., Dobrow, M., Lemieux-Charles, L., Ritvo, P., Urbach, D., & Wodchis, W. (2008). The efficiency and effectiveness of utilizing diagrams in interviews: An assessment of participatory diagramming and graphic elicitation. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 53. Available from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/53

PRAGMATICS OF RUNNING CLINICAL TRIALS: DESIGN, MANAGEMENT AND THE PROCESSES OF CHANGE

THE WORKSHOP AT A GLANCE

The SYNERGY annual workshop is organised to provide an opportunity for discussion between health psychologists conducting research in core fields within health psychology. The focus is on advancing the standard of work within the field by pooling expertise, sharing critical evaluations, and stimulating networking and collaborative research between researchers from all over Europe in an informal and supportive atmosphere. It is also an opportunity for researchers to present their research for discussion in depth with other experts working in the same field in a friendly and relaxed atmosphere.

Recently, there has been a strong call for health psychologists to engage in more translational research. Two recent editorials in Psychology and Health by leading health psychologists focused on this theme. Taylor (2008) proposed that intervention research should ask two interrelated questions “how can we make a difference in prevention or patient care, and if we do, what mechanisms might underlie these effects?’ (p 133). Leventhal et al. (2007) argued that we not only need to translate concepts from theory into practice to create interventions but we also need to make sure our work meets the standards of current evidence-based practice. Intervention trials are often the most challenging forms of research but if set up correctly they can also be the most rewarding. This year’s SYNERGY workshop will provide an opportunity to bring together experienced and more novice researchers to critically examine some of the more pragmatic aspects of clinical trials and address the following key topics:

• Designing trials to maximise outputs throughout the trial focusing on process and outcome (e.g. choosing control conditions, addressing ethical issues, assessing therapist effects and fidelity of treatment)
• Setting up intervention trials and the day-to-day running of clinical trials
• Testing mediator and moderator designs both in relation to improving theory and enhancing intervention effectiveness

The workshop will last three days and the scheduled timetable is: Sunday 20th September 1400-1730, Monday 21st September 0930-1730 and Tuesday 22nd 0930-1730.

The workshop will be facilitated by: Prof Rona Moss-Morris, University of Southampton, UK; Prof Trudie Chalder, Institute of Psychiatry and King’s College London, UK; Dr Alison Wearden, University of Manchester, UK; Prof Gijs Bleijenberg, University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
The facilitators will guide the work, support and moderate the discussion.

The workshop fee is EUR 255 (this includes the workshop materials, lunch for Monday 21st and Tuesday 22nd Sept, coffee breaks and the workshop dinner). Please note that accommodation is not included. Rooms have been reserved at the Hotel Granduca (approx. 85EUR pn; see http://www.hotelgranduca.it). Also a few rooms are available at the Campus (approx. 35 EUR pn) for students and/or low economy citizens. Further details about accommodation will be sent separately to all delegates once their registration is received.

Note that the EHPS is offering 2 grants to those who want to attend the SYNERGY workshop but do not have sufficient financial resources. Each grant will be up to EUR 1100. For further information about the grants, please check the EHPS webite (http://ehps.net) and under EHPS Grants and Stipends 2009.

The workshop will be held at the National Research Area, San Cataldo, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124, Pisa (see http://www.area.pi.cnr.it).

The workshop will be held in English language.

CULTURE, HEALTH AND ILLNESS REPRESENTATIONS – DEVELOPING AN INTERNATIONAL AGENDA FOR CROSS-CULTURAL HEALTH PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

This expert meeting was facilitated by Michael Diefenbach (US), Jeanne Edman (US) & Alison Karasz (US).

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN THEORY, EVIDENCE AND INTERVENTION RESEARCH

This expert meeting was facilitated by Susan Michie (UK), Pascal Sheeran (UK), and Alexander Rothman (USA).

EMOTIONAL PROCESSES AND HEALTH: THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL DISCLOSURE

This expert meeting was facilitated by James Pennebaker (USA) & Bernard Rimé (Belgium).