Twitter is a great medium, but the 140 character limit is… limiting.
So I thought I would briefly explain a couple of recent postings, and add some context to some postings I will be making over the next few days and weeks.
I published a paper back in 2005 (which you can find here, unfortunately the original article is behind a pay-wall) which set out some hypotheses about the relationship between different causal and mediating factors in mental health.
We were lucky enough then to work with the BBC to conduct a large on-line study to explore – to test – these hypotheses. We published the preliminary results here, where you can read much more about the study itself.
Publishing in peer-review journals takes a little longer, but we have one paper now published, and we are very confident that more will be out soon.
I’ll share the main results papers when they are free to access (one paper has been accepted, but we’re waiting for publication) but I thought I would explain the background to our most recent publication.
The BBC well-being scale (the topic of my most recent post) was originally developed for clinical settings, but proved perfect for our online experiment with the BBC. We believe that it has great potential for researchers wanting to explore a holistic (horrible word, but applicable here) definition of well-being. We also believe it may be useful - along with other excellent measures of well-being such as the WEMWBS scale - in developing and evaluating the genuine effectiveness of mental health services. I won’t describe it in detail here, because you can read the paper itself, but we hope it measures – reliably and effectively – a representative cross-section of the elements of genuine well-being.
And… to put the preliminary findings in more scientific context… I’ll post the full results of our covariance analysis in a few days time.