http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8617 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 18:56:02 GMT 2026-07-04T18:56:02Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33558 Title: The views of young people on how to prevent or address loneliness: analysis of British survey data from the BBC Loneliness Experiment Authors: Hall, A; Barreto, M; Victor, C; Qualter, P; Pitman, A Abstract: Loneliness in adolescence is a promising intervention target because of the high prevalence of loneliness at this developmental stage, the demonstrable associations with mental illness, and potential to prevent the onset of mental disorder. However, the acceptability of loneliness interventions to adolescents is questionable, and may explain the weak trial evidence to support effectiveness. In the current study, we captured the views of young people about which interventions they recommended for preventing or addressing loneliness. Using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics we analysed qualitative and quantitative data for 393 British participants age 16-18 years in the BBC Loneliness Experiment, recruited in 2018. Analysis identified three main themes: Connecting with others; Changing how one relates to others; and Changing how one experiences solitude. Responses to a list of 21 suggested solutions to loneliness showed that >50% endorsed each of: distraction approaches, focussing on work, study, or hobbies, talking about one’s feelings, and joining a club. Our findings suggest that young people find the experience of loneliness distressing but are resourceful in finding strategies to prevent or mitigate it. Learning to take pleasure in their own company was described as a way of avoiding solitude being experienced as a stigmatised state of aloneness. These, and other important life skills, such as seeking out social connections and using opportunities for self-improvement, provided valuable guidance for peers. Their advice provides guidance for future research and co-produced intervention development to address loneliness in this age group. Description: Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.; This is a PDF of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form. As such, this version is no longer the Accepted Manuscript, but it is not yet the definitive Version of Record; we are providing this early version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that Elsevier’s sharing policy for the Published Journal Article applies to this version, see: https://www.elsevier.com/about/ policies-and-standards/sharing#4-published-journal-article. Please also note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33558 2026-07-02T00:00:00Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33552 Title: An evaluative case study of the mental  health and wellbeing response to the Grenfell Tower fire; Lessons for disaster preparedness and management Authors: Green, J; Fairman, R; Hannigan, B; Derwig, J; Adhyaru, J; Barber, V; Banstola, A; Bisson, JI; Brewin, C; Crisford, P; Hassan, F; Hawthorne, J-A; Kocsis, A; Semedo, C; Strelitz, J Abstract: Background: The Grenfell Tower fire, London, in 2017 caused 72 deaths, and mass evacuations. This evaluative case study examines the disaster response, particularly the mental health and wellbeing programme delivered by statutory services, notably the NHS and local government (RBKC). It explores what they did, and how they worked together and with voluntary sector organisations (VSOs) to identify key lessons for the planning of disaster responses. Methods: The study focused on the first two years of the response. Data was gathered from publicly available sources and interviews with key informants. Uncertainties and missing information were clarified with organisations. A timeline of the response was created as well as an overview of key lessons for future responses. Results: In national guidance RBKC was responsible for co-ordinating the longer-term recovery response. That was difficult because it had lost the trust of the local community. The NHS had to go beyond its assigned role of treatment and advice, which was too narrowly envisaged in national guidance. Both mental health and wellbeing need to be addressed after a disaster. Wellbeing is poorly defined, inadequately measured and rarely researched. Local and national VSOs played a vital role, but our understanding of the details is incomplete, as for most disaster responses. Conclusions: Local communities must be fully involved in decisions about recovery programmes. Mental health and wellbeing are not synonymous but closely linked. Far more people will be injured psychologically than physically in a disaster. Large disasters require multi-agency partnerships sharing expertise and resources, rather than tasks being allocated between organisations through commissioning. There is a need to further develop and disseminate evidence-based mental health interventions delivered by non-experts as part of these partnerships. Training needs to teach practical skills as well as awareness. These lessons are also relevant to mainstream mental health services. Description: Data availability: The data supporting this study comprise an exceptionally large volume of third party publicly available documents, the core Public Inquiry report alone is more than 2500 pages long. We have referenced documents used for this paper within the text. Links to these documents are in the bibliography. As noted in the paper information on aggregate activity and spend for mental health were provided by CNWL in response to our queries Grenfell.wellbeingservice@nhs.net. We cannot make transcripts of interviews available due to ethical and confidentiality restrictions. Guaranteeing confidentiality was essential to achieve recruitment and to ensure respondents felt able to speak freely. A separate qualitative report is in preparation. This will include analyses and anonymised quotations as is usual in qualitative reports. Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33552 2026-06-25T00:00:00Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33542 Title: Self-initiated strategies for managing loneliness: insights from two large-scale surveys Authors: Walibhai, W; Barreto, M; Victor, C; Qualter, P Abstract: Introduction: Most of the research on reducing loneliness has taken a deficit-based approach that focuses on formal interventions rather than an asset-based approach that empowers individuals to manage their own loneliness. There is little understanding of the self-initiated strategies individuals use to manage their loneliness, and a lack of clarity on how perceived effectiveness and use of those strategies differs across sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: Secondary analysis of two large-scale datasets (BBC Loneliness Experiment and EU Loneliness Survey) was conducted to explore self-initiated loneliness management strategies implemented and perceived to be effective by individuals ages 16 to 99 years who reported frequent loneliness (N = 18354). Respondents selected the strategies they used from a list of 12 pre-defined options in the EU dataset, and the strategies they perceived as effective from a list of 21 options in the BBC dataset. Frequencies of use and perceived effectiveness for each strategy were calculated, and binary logistic regression analyses assessed whether gender, age, income, and geographical region were significant predictors of strategy use and perceived effectiveness. Results: The most frequently used strategies were seeing friends, family members or other loved ones (31.8%) and taking time for yourself (28.9%). The strategies most frequently perceived as effective were finding activities to distract you when on your own (58.5%) and dedicating time to work, study, or hobbies (52.6%). A strategy used infrequently was contacting a specialized charity (5.3%), and introducing yourself to neighbors (9.5%) was least often perceived as effective. Gender, age, income, and region significantly predicted the use and perceived effectiveness of different strategies. Conclusion: Individuals experiencing loneliness engage in and perceive as effective various self-initiated, unstructured strategies to manage their loneliness. Future research should consider integrating an asset-based approach that explores the experiences of self-initiated loneliness management, understands the choice of these strategies, and determines their effectiveness to inform future policy and practice. Description: Data availability statement: Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: https://osf.io/pw74v/overviewhttps://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/82e60986-9987-4610-ab4a-84f0f5a9193b .; Supplementary material: The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1846133/full#supplementary-material . Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33542 2026-06-12T00:00:00Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33517 Title: Challenges in Advising People with Severe Mental Illness to Quit Smoking: A Conversation Analysis of Patient Resistance Authors: Yang, X; Begh, R; Lindson, N; Albury, C; Barnes, R; Dyson, J; Morrison, L; Bradbury, K; Molodynski, A; Coleman, T; Naughton, F; Chang, MK; Pokhrel, S; Johnston, G; Peckham, E; Knight, E; Joyce, J Abstract: Objectives: People experiencing severe mental illness (SMI) smoke at rates 2.5 times higher than the general population and have a reduced lifespan by 15-20 years, causing substantial health inequalities. This study examined how people with SMI resisted smoking cessation advice, delivered by primary care clinicians (general practitioners and nurses) during routine annual health reviews. Methods: Using conversation analysis (CA), we analysed 56 audio-recorded consultations from a randomised controlled trial of annual health reviews in which smoking cessation advice was discussed. We identified a core collection of 21 instances of patient resistance and conducted detailed sequential analysis to examine how resistance to smoking cessation advice was expressed, and how clinicians responded. Results: Analysis revealed two distinct patterns of resistance to smoking cessation advice: implicit rejection and explicit rejection. In implicit rejection sequences, patients foreground mental health concerns, thereby indicating that quitting cannot be acted upon at the moment. In explicit rejection sequences, patients rejected the advice with an explicit ‘no’ and expressed indifference to the health risks of smoking, presenting smoking as non-negotiable and making further discussion redundant. In both scenarios, clinicians responded with acknowledgements (e.g. “mm”, “yeah”, or “okay” indicating receipt and alignment), neither explicitly agreeing with the patient nor pushing back on their resistance. Conclusions: Addressing smoking-related health inequalities among people with SMI is challenging because quitting is often deprioritised in the context of competing mental health and social concerns. These difficulties are compounded by clinicians’ challenges in raising and sustaining smoking cessation discussions. Recognising how resistance to quitting advice is interactionally produced can support more flexible and tailored cessation approaches that better align with patients’ priorities. Practice implications: This study highlights the unique resistance sequence presented in consultations advising people with SMI to quit smoking. It provides implications for clinical professionals to adopt more responsive and tailored responses to the resistance. Description: This is a PDF of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form. As such, this version is no longer the Accepted Manuscript, but it is not yet the definitive Version of Record; we are providing this early version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that Elsevier’s sharing policy for the Published Journal Article applies to this version, see: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/sharing#4-publishedjournal-article. Please also note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Tue, 16 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33517 2026-06-16T00:00:00Z