Search

Data analysis workflows in many scientific domains have become increasingly complex and flexible. Here we assess the effect of this flexibility on the results of functional magnetic resonance imaging by asking 70 independent teams to analyse the same dataset, testing the same 9 ex-ante hypotheses1. The flexibility of analytical approaches is exemplified by the fact that no two teams chose identical workflows to analyse the data. This flexibility resulted in sizeable variation in the results of hypothesis tests, even for teams whose statistical maps were highly correlated at intermediate stages of the analysis pipeline. Variation in reported results was related to several aspects of analysis methodology. Notably, a meta-analytical approach that aggregated information across teams yielded a significant consensus in activated regions. Furthermore, prediction markets of researchers in the field revealed an overestimation of the likelihood of significant findings, even by researchers with direct knowledge of the dataset2–5. Our findings show that analytical flexibility can have substantial effects on scientific conclusions, and identify factors that may be related to variability in the analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging. The results emphasize the importance of validating and sharing complex analysis workflows, and demonstrate the need for performing and reporting multiple analyses of the same data. Potential approaches that could be used to mitigate issues related to analytical variability are discussed., Depto. de Psicobiología y Metodología en Ciencias del Comportamiento, Fac. de Psicología, TRUE, pub

Countries are increasingly looking to ‘digitalise’ how public services are delivered, with welfare‐to‐work and public employment services being key sites of reform. It is hoped that digitalisation can achieve efficient, effective, and targeted services for those in need and there is now a growing body of research on both the opportunities and pitfalls associated with this transition to digital welfare states. However, as a concept, ‘digitalisation’ remains ambiguously defined, hindering understanding of the distinct ways that discrete technological innovations are reshaping citizens' access to social protection and the role of street‐level discretion in welfare administration. Drawing on interviews with expert informants from three countries pioneering digital reforms, this study aims to better understand what digitalisation entails for the delivery of activation. We identify three discrete modes of ‘digitalisation’ in welfare‐to‐work programmes: virtual engagement (remote activation), transactional automation (self‐activation), and digital triaging (targeted activation). Far from digitalisation heralding the automation and curtailment of frontline discretion, the different modes reshape frontline delivery and citizens' access to social protection in specific ways.

Background: The emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required a rapid acceleration of policy decision making, and raised a wide range of ethical issues worldwide, ranging from vaccine prioritisation, welfare and public health ‘trade-offs’, inequalities in policy impacts, and the legitimacy of scientific expertise. Aims and objectives: This paper explores the legacy of the pandemic for future science-advice-policy relationships by investigating how the UK government’s engagement with ethical advice is organised institutionally. We provide an analysis of some key ethical moments in the UK Government response to the pandemic, and institutions and national frameworks which exist to provide ethical advice on policy strategies. Methods: We draw on literature review, documentary analysis of scientific advisory group reports, and a stakeholder workshop with government ethics advisors and researchers in England. Findings: We identify how particular types of ethical advice and expertise are sought to support decision making. Contrary to a prominent assumption in the extensive literature on ‘governing by expertise’, ethical decisions in times of crisis are highly contingent. Discussion and conclusions: The paper raises an important set of questions for how best to equip policymakers to navigate decisions about values in situations characterised by knowledge deficits, complexity and uncertainty. We conclude that a clearer pathway is needed between advisory institutions and decision makers to ensure ethically-informed debate.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by nonscarring hair loss. As a clinically heterogeneous disease, various classification systems have evolved for defining its severity. In this high-level review of the literature, we discuss the traditional classification systems for AA severity and their strengths and weaknesses. Most recent classifications have focused on the extent of scalp hair loss as a defining feature, but additional clinical aspects of the disease, including location, pattern, and duration of hair loss as well as impact on the patient's quality of life, are also relevant. These various components have typically been used unidimensionally to classify patients. We propose a multidimensional framework to define AA severity that incorporates multiple patient- and illness-related domains. Using such a framework, dermatologists may better assess the severity of the disease for the individual patient beyond the extent of hair loss.

The exercise of administrative discretion by street-level workers plays a key role in shaping citizens’ access to welfare and employment services. Governance reforms of social services delivery, such as performance-based contracting, have often been driven by attempts to discipline this discretion. In several countries, these forms of market governance are now being eclipsed by new modes of digital governance that seek to reshape the delivery of services using algorithms and machine learning. Australia, a pioneer of marketisation, is one example, proposing to deploy digitalisation to fully automate most of its employment services rather than as a supplement to face-to-face case management. We examine the potential and limits of this project to replace human-to-human with ‘machine bureaucracies’. To what extent are welfare and employment services amenable to digitalisation? What trade-offs are involved? In addressing these questions, we consider the purported benefits of machine bureaucracies in achieving higher levels of efficiency, accountability, and consistency in policy delivery. While recognising the potential benefits of machine bureaucracies for both governments and jobseekers, we argue that trade-offs will be faced between enhancing the efficiency and consistency of services and ensuring that services remain accessible and responsive to highly personalised circumstances.

Dramaturgical perspectives have been used successfully in the past by crisis management researchers. However, previous contributions have been limited because they have been actor‐centered, which has meant that they have tended to ignore the critical role that an audience can play in the drama of a crisis. This article therefore presents a “third act” in which dramaturgical perspectives are used to deliver an actor‐and‐audience centered analysis of crisis management. This third act is built around the dramaturgical concept of “characterization,” which we introduce to assess how an audience receives the symbolic outputs and discourses that are produced by crisis actors. After this theorizing, we present an analytical model, which will allow future researchers to analyze the interplay between actor, audience, and legitimacy when examining crisis. We conclude by illustrating the model's analytical capacity via an examination of the role of leaders and experts during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Education is broader than academic teaching. It includes teaching students social-emotional skills both directly and indirectly through a positive school climate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if a universal school-based mindfulness training (SBMT) enhances teacher mental health and school climate. METHODS: The My Resilience in Adolescence parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial (registration: ISRCTN86619085; funding: Wellcome Trust (WT104908/Z/14/Z, WT107496/Z/15/Z)) recruited 85 schools (679 teachers) delivering social and emotional teaching across the UK. Schools (clusters) were randomised 1:1 to either continue this provision (teaching as usual (TAU)) or include universal SBMT. Data on teacher mental health and school climate were collected at prerandomisation, postpersonal mindfulness and SBMT teacher training, after delivering SBMT to students, and at 1-year follow-up. FINDING: Schools were recruited in academic years 2016/2017 and 2017/2018. Primary analysis (SBMT: 43 schools/362 teachers; TAU: 41 schools/310 teachers) showed that after delivering SBMT to students, SBMT versus TAU enhanced teachers' mental health (burnout) and school climate. Adjusted standardised mean differences (SBMT minus TAU) were: exhaustion (-0.22; 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05); personal accomplishment (-0.21; -0.41, -0.02); school leadership (0.24; 0.04, 0.44); and respectful climate (0.26; 0.06, 0.47). Effects on burnout were not significant at 1-year follow-up. Effects on school climate were maintained only for respectful climate. No SBMT-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: SBMT supports short-term changes in teacher burnout and school climate. Further work is required to explore how best to sustain improvements. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SBMT has limited effects on teachers' mental and school climate. Innovative approaches to support and preserve teachers' mental health and school climate are needed.

BACKGROUND: Preventing mental health problems in early adolescence is a priority. School-based mindfulness training (SBMT) is an approach with mixed evidence. OBJECTIVES: To explore for whom SBMT does/does not work and what influences outcomes. METHODS: The My Resilience in Adolescence was a parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial (K=84 secondary schools; n=8376 students, age: 11-13) recruiting schools that provided standard social-emotional learning. Schools were randomised 1:1 to continue this provision (control/teaching as usual (TAU)), and/or to offer SBMT ('.b' (intervention)). Risk of depression, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being were measured at baseline, preintervention, post intervention and 1 year follow-up. Hypothesised moderators, implementation factors and mediators were analysed using mixed effects linear regressions, instrumental variable methods and path analysis. FINDINGS: SBMT versus TAU resulted in worse scores on risk of depression and well-being in students at risk of mental health problems both at post intervention and 1-year follow-up, but differences were small and not clinically relevant. Higher dose and reach were associated with worse social-emotional-behavioural functioning at postintervention. No implementation factors were associated with outcomes at 1-year follow-up. Pregains-postgains in mindfulness skills and executive function predicted better outcomes at 1-year follow-up, but the SBMT was unsuccessful to teach these skills with clinical relevance.SBMT as delivered in this trial is not indicated as a universal intervention. Moreover, it may be contraindicated for students with existing/emerging mental health symptoms. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Universal SBMT is not recommended in this format in early adolescence. Future research should explore social-emotional learning programmes adapted to the unique needs of young people.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest school-based mindfulness training (SBMT) shows promise in promoting student mental health. OBJECTIVE: The My Resilience in Adolescence (MYRIAD) Trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SBMT compared with teaching-as-usual (TAU). METHODS: MYRIAD was a parallel group, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Eighty-five eligible schools consented and were randomised 1:1 to TAU (43 schools, 4232 students) or SBMT (42 schools, 4144 students), stratified by school size, quality, type, deprivation and region. Schools and students (mean (SD); age range=12.2 (0.6); 11-14 years) were broadly UK population-representative. Forty-three schools (n=3678 pupils; 86.9%) delivering SBMT, and 41 schools (n=3572; 86.2%) delivering TAU, provided primary end-point data. SBMT comprised 10 lessons of psychoeducation and mindfulness practices. TAU comprised standard social-emotional teaching. Participant-level risk for depression, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being at 1 year follow-up were the co-primary outcomes. Secondary and economic outcomes were included. FINDINGS: Analysis of 84 schools (n=8376 participants) found no evidence that SBMT was superior to TAU at 1 year. Standardised mean differences (intervention minus control) were: 0.005 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.06) for risk for depression; 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.07) for social-emotional-behavioural functioning; and 0.02 (-0.03 to 0.07) for well-being. SBMT had a high probability of cost-effectiveness (83%) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year. No intervention-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Findings do not support the superiority of SBMT over TAU in promoting mental health in adolescence. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is need to ask what works, for whom and how, as well as considering key contextual and implementation factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86619085. This research was funded by t

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are common among primary-school aged children, but few affected children receive evidence-based treatment. Identifying and supporting children who experience anxiety problems through schools would address substantial treatment access barriers that families and school staff often face. We have worked with families and school staff to co-design procedures that incorporate screening, feedback for parents, and the offer of a brief intervention in primary schools. This study sets out to assess the feasibility of a subsequent school-based cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate these procedures. Our objectives are to ensure our procedures for identifying and supporting children with anxiety difficulties through primary schools are acceptable and there are no negative impacts, to estimate recruitment and retention rates, and to identify any changes needed to study procedures or measures. METHODS: We will recruit six primary/junior schools in England (2 classes per school), and invite all children (aged 8-9) (n = 360) and their parent/carer and class teacher in participating classes to take part. Children, parents and class teachers will complete questionnaires at baseline and 12-week follow-up. Children who 'screen positive' on a 2-item parent-report child anxiety screen at baseline will be the target population (expected n = 43). Parents receive feedback on screening questionnaire responses, and where the child screens positive the family is offered support (OSI: Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety). OSI is a brief, parent-led online intervention, supported by short telephone sessions with a Children's Wellbeing Practitioner. Participants' experiences of study procedures will be assessed through qualitative interviews/discussion groups. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based procedures for identifying and supporting children with anxiety difficulties through primary schools would improve children's access to timely, effective interv

BACKGROUND: Systematically screening for child anxiety problems, and offering and delivering a brief, evidence-based intervention for children who are identified as likely to benefit would minimise common barriers that families experience in accessing treatment. We have developed a short parent-report child anxiety screening questionnaire, and procedures for administering screening questionnaires, sharing screening outcomes with families, and offering and delivering a brief parent-led online intervention (OSI: Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety) through schools. This trial aims to evaluate clinical and health economic outcomes for (1) children (aged 8-9) who screen positive for anxiety problems at baseline (target population) and (2) the wider population of all children in participating classes (total population) in schools randomly allocated to receive identification-to-intervention procedures and usual school practice ('screening and intervention'), compared to assessment and usual school practice only ('usual school practice'). METHODS: The trial design is a parallel-group, superiority cluster randomised controlled trial, with schools (clusters) randomised to 'screening and intervention' or 'usual school practice' arms in a 1:1 ratio stratified according to the level of deprivation within the school. We will recruit schools and participants in two phases (a pilot phase (Phase 1) and Phase 2), with progression criteria assessed prior to progressing to Phase 2. In total, the trial will recruit 80 primary/junior schools in England, and 398 children (199 per arm) who screen positive for anxiety problems at baseline (target population). In schools allocated to 'screening and intervention': (1) parents/carers will complete a brief parent-report child anxiety screening questionnaire (at baseline) and receive feedback on their child's screening outcomes (after randomisation), (2) classes will receive a lesson on managing fears and worries and staff will b