News: Platinum Training Institute proud to be a partner on the ‘Empowering people through physical activity’ project
Platinum Training Institute, a training provider in Northern Ireland that helps people pursue their career in health and fitness, is excited to be a partner on the project, ‘Empowering people through physical activity.’ The project which funded by DRILL, is led by the Mental Health Foundation along with various partners including Queen’s University Belfast, Praxis Care and Northern Ireland Chest Heart and Stroke. It is a pilot study which aims to design and develop a physical activity intervention in Northern Ireland, for people with serious mental health problems with co-production at its heart.
Platinum Training Institute’s role in the study is integral. A selection of personal trainers from Platinum Training Institute, all of whom have extensive experience working with people with mental health problems, will work directly with participants to get to know participants and understand what they want from an intervention. Participant discussion and feedback at co-production workshops will be used by Platinum Training Institute to inform the design and delivery of the physical activity programme. Personal trainers will take a client-centred approach, and their professional experience will allow them to appropriately monitor and adapt activity sessions with clients accordingly, giving them the best chance to succeed.
Lee Havern, founder of Platinum Training Institute has said: ‘I strongly believe that engaging in physical activity can have a range of benefits for people with mental health problems, however it is important that the exercise professional has an understanding and knowledge of how to work with clients with mental health conditions. Our course, ‘Physical Activity for Adults with Mental Health Conditions’, equips personal trainers with the relevant skills and expertise to work with this population group. We are excited to work on this exciting and important project and its values are very aligned with those of Platinum Training Institute.’
Please click the link for further information about the project Empowering people through physical activity
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
News: Joint oral statement by APDA, Disabled People Against Cuts and Disability Rights UK
British government policy at national, regional and local levels repeatedly refers to ‘helping people to stay independent for as long as possible’. It claims its policy accords with Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but demonstrates a failure to comprehend the concept of ‘independent living’ based on the right to exercise choice and control, and equity in life chances. It frequently justifies removal of essential support on the grounds of ‘helping’ to ‘improve their independence’, effectively subverting Article 19 rights to remove rights
After 2009, disabled people hoped for equality, fair treatment and the opportunity to participate fully in society. Instead cuts to social care have made it harder for disabled people to live independently.
Social inclusion has been seriously prejudiced by government attempts to cut costs through so-called welfare reform such as Universal Credit and the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance.
Austerity measures are disproportionately affecting disabled people’s right to an adequate standard of living as set out in the UN CRPD. Assessments are not informed by disabled people’s lived experience of impairment.
The reduction in financial support available to many disabled people has caused increased poverty and a deterioration in wellbeing and the quality of life. Many cut down on food and heating, use food banks and borrow money that they are ill-equipped to repay.
With many health, social care and public transport services devolved, we see:
- More children in ‘special schools’ rather than mainstream education
- The growing use of compulsory detention/forced treatment powers contained in mental health legislation
- A shortfall in housing that meets the needs of disabled people
- Lack of investment in services supporting independent living
- Inadequate investigation into unexpected deaths of disabled people in state care.
APDA, Disability Rights UK and DPAC have come together to oppose such retrogressive austerity measures. We urge the UN to remind the UK Government to:
- Work with disabled people
- Act on the UN Rapporteur’s recommendations following its 2018 Poverty Review
- Not to forget the UN’s 2016 report that stated that the UK government had systematically violated the rights of people with disabilities through its 2010-2015 welfare ‘reforms’.
For further information about the project click here humare-avaaz-voice-exploring-experiences-barriers-faced-disabled-asian-women/
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Blog: February in New York, APDA
UN Blog
February in New York is far from ideal – it’s bitterly cold – but that’s when the UN’s 57th Session of the Commission for Social Development was held. The Commission is the advisory body responsible for the social development pillar of global development.
The priority theme for 2109 was ‘Addressing inequalities and challenges to social inclusion through fiscal, wage and social protection policies’.
APDA has had ‘special consultative status’ with the Commission, one of a number of NGOs (non-governmental bodies) across the world to have this prestigious status because of valuable work nationally and internationally.
Pradip Shah (our Chair) [photo – perhaps from our Annual Report), two carers and a staff member made the trip to contribute to the discussions and advocate for the rights of disabled people generally. Notably, APDA was in a minority of NGOs that delivers front line support services as well as performing advocacy and advisory functions and therefore could speak from the authoritative position of ‘lived experience’.
Pradip’s ‘journey’ to New York and back – from travel logistics to everyday issues – was not only an object lessons on the barriers to independence faced by disabled people but also a great example of what can be achieved by society making reasonable adjustments and people showing simple goodwill. Having said that, the seeming lack of fully accessible facilities and poor signage in the UN building was a distraction from more important social inclusion issues, a point we forcibly made to the UN in open forum.
We made our presence felt. People listened to Pradip, not just because he obviously spoke from lived experience but also because of the cogency of what he said. He represented the position of all disabled people in the UK, not just London’s Asian community that APDA specifically supports with it culturally sensitive day care and home care.
Below is a link to the UN’s TV channel. We particularly recommend the Civil Society Forum where the UK’s recent record on social protection, specifically Universal Credit/impact on women, came in for cogent criticism! Two interesting opinions were put forward by Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, UN Human Rights Council, Professor of Law at New York University: (a) that austerity had become an ideology, and (b) that if you asked a group of misogynists what changes they would like to Universal Credit, they would answer ‘not many’ – worrying thoughts! (You need to go 34 minutes into the video for the keynote address.)
Go to our website (apda.org.uk) to learn more about our culturally sensitive services.
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Blog: Centre for Welfare Reform, On Not Being Believed
Wheelchair Vista on the lasting effects of being doubted
Many of us with long term conditions struggle to accept that we can no longer live life as we used to. It took me almost ten years.
I carried on working for longer than I should. A resident at the care home I managed said; “It’s doing you no good keeping on working. Why don’t you reduce your hours or stop altogether?” She saw that I could not stand for long without leaning against a wall. Staff noticed that I always relied on the lift and was often in urgent need of the loo.
When I had time off work for minor surgery it had to be extended due to massive bruising sustained in a car crash. This was soon followed by investigations for IBS and a referral for knee surgery, which culminated in my employment contract being ended.
After numerous consultations with specialists, who were honest with me about the available treatments, I understood that my body was no longer going to function as it had. Nonetheless I was listened to, given choices and, most importantly, believed.
I hated not working and hoped to return, however a bad reaction to chemotherapy treatment for cancer led to severely reduced lung function and worsened fatigue. Finally, I accepted that I would never work full time again.
My children and then-partner were supportive. We discussed the possibility of a lung transplant but the consultant made the decision for me: a transplant was not appropriate. I was fine with that, having already adjusted to using a mobility scooter to get around. Then my relationship ended and I struggled with daily chores – I was permanently exhausted and out of breath. Upon asking social services to increase my care package I had my first experience of being disbelieved.
My original care package during cancer treatment was awarded swiftly and I expected a similar process – I was in for a shock. The social worker’s premise was that because I was still seeing consultants and surgeons that there must be something more they could do. Despite explaining that a lung transplant had been ruled out she insisted upon another referral.
Not being believed had a profound effect. Despite my background as a Clinical Nurse Specialist I began querying both my diagnosis and clinicians’ decisions. Instead of being secure in my choices I felt unsettled and confused. Maybe I hadn’t followed through on some possible options? Talking to nurses with the same expertise as myself, I asked ‘Should I have a transplant?’. All confirmed that both age and the complexities of my other health conditions excluded surgery.
Deep down I knew they were right, yet I was being pushed into checking and double-checking. I still feel the emotional pain this confusion caused. Why couldn’t this social worker understand? Eventually a strong letter from my Respiratory Consultant stopped the bullying but I was left traumatised.
Other incidents with the same social worker triggered a formal complaint. When allocated a new social worker the enhanced care package I needed quickly followed. The relief was enormous and my quality of life improved substantially.
“…disabled people’s need for social care puts us in a dependent position. The choice we face is stark: seek support and risk being discredited or carry on as usual and struggle with limited life choices.”
Eventually increasing back pain meant I could no longer comfortably use my scooter. Fortunately I got a grant to buy an electric wheelchair, however my flat was not wheelchair accessible. The wheelchair lived in the car and had to be dismantled and brought inside for charging. My need for an accessible flat was greater than ever, however I had already been on the waiting list for eight years. None of the properties viewed during this time were wheelchair accessible.
By chance I was offered a perfect flat, although in different London borough. The Care Act dictated that my care package should move with me so I had no reason to worry. However, securing the care package became a dystopian nightmare. The new borough required confirmation of my circumstances from consultants who no longer cared for me! Most of the surgery undergone during my initial time off work was done privately; some treatment also took place when I lived in the US – I don’t have the money to access the information they require.
A referral to another Respiratory Consultant led to me being discharged, as I don’t qualify for continuous oxygen – the one treatment that might reduce my breathlessness. The social worker’s response: “We may not be able to accept that.” I’m back in the trauma of not being believed. Each social worker visit left me more distressed.
My professional work has included being an Expert Witness in several court cases – I’m used to being believed and respected. Finding myself in a parallel universe where my skills and knowledge are disregarded is frightening.
Relationships are based on honesty and trust. In most cases we choose who to have relationships with, but disabled people’s need for social care puts us in a dependent position. The choice we face is stark: seek support and risk being discredited or carry on as usual and struggle with limited life choices.
Asking for care creates uncertainty. The imbalance of power can lead to abuse of process and of the relationship between social worker and client – we have little say in the process. My personal experience of two different London boroughs is borne out by conversations with other disabled people – being disbelieved is sadly all too common. Being doubted causes mistrust in what our body is telling us; this is dangerous. My first sceptical social worker caused emotional strain that worsened my IBS and I lost a great deal of weight.
Within three years of leaving work I was prescribed morphine patches for pain. Scans showed the consultant how damaged my spine was – he never once questioned the severity of my pain. Three months later I was discharged from his clinic, feeling validated and with my pain well managed. This is how good medicine is practised. During nursing training we were taught: ‘Pain is what the patient says it is, where they say it is and how severe they tell you it is.’ I followed this mantra everyday in my nursing practice; it is patient focused, ensuring that nurses listen and act accordingly.
What has happened to that level of compassion in social work? I have been forced to argue my case against someone without the clinical skills or qualifications to understand my condition. They don’t inhabit my body; they don’t feel the pins and needles in my hands that prevent me from gripping things properly. They don’t have 40% lung function and don’t know what it’s like to feel constantly fatigued. They are NOT me.
Whenever I’m disbelieved, personal doubt resurfaces. Fortunately I have learned enough therapy techniques to stop the broken record and my friends support me against the onslaught of cynicism – I’m able to remain reasonably balanced. Yet a friend in similar circumstances copes by self-harming and many others drink to blot out the disbelief.
Managing the rejection of my true life situation has left me exhausted. The unnecessary trauma has made me increasingly angry. A benefits system that constantly questions someone’s fitness for work, disregarding incurable conditions, is an outrage. The power that social workers have over disabled people’s lives is insufferable. A government that believes in austerity and cutting services is inhumane.
There is a better way. Trust disabled people to know their own bodies and what support they need. Belief should be the default position unless contradicted by evidence. We need a National Independent Living Fund linked to Support Money (benefits) by a Holistic Assessment. Combine ESA with PIP/DLA so that those awarded the highest support are automatically granted a number of social care hours per week.
Such reform would provide disabled people with a guaranteed level of care. It would promote dignity and permit disabled people to have a greater level of choice in their lives. How this would work is another post entirely.
Wheelchair Vista, is a blogger and disability activist. She writes about her life and issues that affect disabled people. She also tries to pass on some of the knowledge she’s gained along her journey. Read WheelchairVista’s blog .
Find out more information about the Chronic Illness Inclusion Project from Centre for Welfare Reform.
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Blog: Barod ready to work
What do you call a researcher with learning disabilities?
Most people call them a ‘co-researcher’. We think that’s OK as long everyone doing the research is called a co-researcher. But if you have ‘the researcher’ working with ‘the co-researcher’, it’s like saying only one of them is a real researcher. We often hear people talking about the researcher and the co-researcher. It’s like having a Chair and a Co-chair, rather than two Co-chairs. That annoys us because if you don’t need them both then why have them both in the team? And if you do need them both, why give one a higher status just because the knowledge and experience they bring is different? So rather than using the term co-researcher, we prefer to say academic researcher and activist researcher. When they do research together we might call them both co-researchers if we need to, but usually we would talk about them co-researching. Researching together is an activity, not an identity or a status. And Barod researchers don’t need an identity that says they can only co-research. We are quite able to do research by ourselves too.
But then we were thinking about why you need activist researchers, or co-researchers, or whatever you choose to call them/us. What do they bring that other researchers can’t bring?
In social research, people talk about insider research. This is social researchers who go and research their own community or work place. That sounds a bit like most of the research done by researchers with learning disabilities. So then we wondered why people don’t usually call them insider researchers. Maybe that’s because academics aren’t quite sure if a researcher with learning disabilities fully deserves the status and label of being a social researcher. If we had time [that’s Barod-speak for ‘please pay us for the time’!] we would love to compare the literature about insider research with the literature about participatory research. There could be a lot to learn about why and how to do participatory research by looking at the lessons from insider research.
In ethnography, social researchers rely on gatekeepers to give them access and credibility. We know this is an important role of activist researchers. Without activist researchers in the team, academic researchers would need to find gatekeepers. With activist researchers in the team, access and credibility can happen via the researchers’ insider status without needing to go and find a gatekeeper. We do wonder sometimes if using the term co-researcher can go hand in hand with thinking of activist researchers a bit like glorified gatekeepers: someone who stands with one foot in the world being researched and one foot in the academic world of research, but who doesn’t really belong in their own right in the academic world of research.
We will keep thinking. We don’t have the answers. We would like to know what other researchers think.
For further information about the project please visit Barod The Bridge: Changing attitudes and communities by turning skills and experience into earnings for self- advocacy organisations and self-advocates.
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Blog: Centre for Welfare Reform: Issues around Chronic Illness and Disability
The Chronic Illness Inclusion Project ran two extended online focus groups, each running over an eight-week period, where people could come together and explore issues around chronic illness and disability.
The online aspect of our research wasn’t for reasons of cost or convenience, it was fundamental to our aim of reaching an invisible housebound population. We wanted to include people who are often left out of traditional consultations and focus groups due to significant energy impairment: people who may too unwell to attend events, and whose concentration span is limited, sporadic and unpredictable due to “brainfog”. This is the very group that welfare policy makers have assumed are “just tired”, like everyone else, and who simply need to “try harder”.
We heard that their day to day reality is very far from this stereotype. The flexible setup of our research forum meant that people could take part from home, at time of their choosing, and had two weeks to respond to questions. Researcher, Stef Benstead, has collected the responses of our participants to the research process: It was often the first time that anyone had shown any interest in their experiences or valued their opinion on matters relating to chronic illness and inclusion in society. “I appreciate the opportunity to be heard and to share my experiences. No-one has ever really asked me about any of this before actually!” “I too have struggled to answer the questions only because it’s been so long since anyone wanted my opinion and the brain fog that comes with my illness making it difficult to remember the right words.”
Participants were grateful for the opportunity to take part in something that was intellectually stimulating and of relevance and interest to them: “I found it difficult to focus and switch my brain on again but it did me the world of good. You have all been amazing and it is a privilege to have spent time with you.” “The project has definitely helped me think more deeply about disability issues and the difficulty of applying frameworks to them.”
The forum created a community of people with shared experiences who could gain comfort from and fellowship with one another… “Thank you so much for creating this place where we could listen and be heard.” “Thanks to everyone who contributed; I’ve felt equally comforted and outraged by your stories.” … and which provided a space for safe expression of fears, difficulties and things that help. “I have appreciated learning from and listening to the perspectives of others without feeling judged, pitied or different.” “It was great to be able to talk in a non judgemental [sic] environment, while learning the similarity & differences joining people with life limiting illnesses”
Participants appreciated the learning that they derived from one another… “It has also many [sic] meant I have a better understanding of my own relationship with my health and conditions. I think there is a long way to go but I feel I have greater acceptance and understanding.” “I found it to be a helpful, informative and sometimes profoundly moving experience.” … which they were able to use to improve their lives. “I am incredibly grateful to this project for finally giving me the language to express who [sic] my chronic illness effects me in a way both that I can explain it to those who need to know, but particularly to decision makers. That has made a huge difference in getting somewhere with getting the help I need.” “I am slightly more confident in ascertaining my own health needs and have improved my relationship(s) with my health providers, or made efforts to, so that I can feel more in control.”
Taking part in the forum gave participants hope for the future: that things could be better and the damage of the past eight years was neither necessary nor inevitable. “As awful and abusive as I think the last 7 years have been for people like us, it’s triggered a kind of activism and urgency in people with chronic illness and the people who care about us that I hope we can come out of the other side in a better place, where we’re treated like people. So, yes, thank you for being part of giving me hope again.” “I have really appreciated this opportunity and think it has great potential… I do hope it continues in some way as it is imperative we chronic illness folk have a platform to air our opinions and experiences; and I hope to work with you all in the near future.”
It was important to participants that the work be taken forward and put into practical effect, rather than being merely more words: “It’s good in that it’s enabled people to express their views but it’s been too wordy – far too concerned with terminology… My understanding of the social model or any other theoretical construct is low because I lose the will to live trying to plough through the words which at the end seem to bear little relation to my life.
However, this project is probably the first stage in disabled people getting together online to campaign for better treatment, especially in relation to our iniquitous benefits system.”
For further information on the project visit chronic-illness-citizenship-mobilising-collective-voice-social-change/
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Vlog: Wiltshire Centre for Independent Living
The ‘ImaYDit’ project has produced the following Vlog providing a greater insight into the transition from childhood to adulthood for disabled young people. It is coproduced with up 10 young disabled co -researchers who are engaging with up to 50 young disabled participants to explore the opportunities for moving forward into independent lives.
For further information about the project please follow the link https://www.drilluk.org.uk/imaydit-i-made-imagining-young-disabled-peoples-transitions-time-major-societal-change/
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Blog: Exciting ongoing research: 4 Nations Research project on attitudes and disability
Northern Ireland section: ‘‘Is It Me?’ How do attitudes in the adult social care system impact on the independent living choices of disabled people’.
This blog is an update on the exciting project regarding attitudes towards disabled people in the context of adult social care that we are currently conducting. The project is funded by the Disability Research on Independent Living and Learning (DRILL) and the Big Lottery Fund, and is led by Disability Action NI (DANI). The project has the ambitious goal of conducting co-produced disability research, by setting up a Research Partnership comprised of disabled advocates, activists and a representative of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC). The Research Partnership makes all the decisions about the project together ensuring that the lived experience and expertise of disabled people is always prioritised.
History and structure.
The ‘Is It Me?’ Project started in May 2018 and the final report for the project will be ready in September 2019. The project has provided a great opportunity to discuss the under researched topic of attitudes and their impact on independent living choices, at a time when the adult social care system in Northern Ireland (NI) is being reformed. The project is divided in four stages: stage 1 is focus groups with disabled people; stage 2 is a focus group with professionals in the adult social care system; stage 3 is individual semi-structured interviews with disabled people; and stage 4 is an online survey for social work and social care workers. Ethical consideration and approval has been sought and successfully granted by the independent DRILL Ethics Committee, comprised of experienced disability studies scholars who have advised us on how best to conduct ethical co-produced disability research.
What we have done so far.
We have completed stages 1 and 2 of the research, and the experience for both the Research Partnership and the participants has been positive and very informative! We facilitated four focus groups with disabled people in several locations across NI (Belfast, Cookstown and Derry/Londonderry). We engaged with 28 disabled people in these focus groups and had passionate discussions about the types of attitudes disabled people have experienced and how these attitudes can be both a barrier and an enhancement to independent living. We have spoken to people with various disabilities and long term conditions, who come from all corners of NI, and the various perspectives provided has ensured that the focus groups are shared and inclusive space.
We also facilitated a focus group with professionals in the adult social care system with the help of the NISCC. We wanted to speak to managers in the adult social care system, in order to get a rounded picture of how people perceive attitudes as either a barrier or an enhancement. What was fascinating about this focus group was that the managers recognised many of the issues and positive examples raised by disabled people. This has which confirmed that a vast majority of participants in the adult social care system would like to see it reformed, to account better for the impact of attitudes on independent living choices.
What comes next.
Our next stage will be stage 3, or semi-structured interviews with disabled people, where we will continue the discussion on attitudes and their impact on independent living in much more depth. The interviews will start at the end of January 2019 and will take place over a few months. We aim to get in touch with many different people, in order to give a platform for some voices that do not get heard often. We are excited about the opportunity to research attitudes further and put forward the lived experience of the participants at the core of our final recommendations.
Contacts
If you are interested in hearing more about the project, or if you want to get in touch with the Research Partnership, please contact the lead researcher Ivanka Antova from DANI at [email protected], or by calling 028 9029 7880.
For further information on the project please click on the link http://is-it-me-how-do-attitudes-within-the-socail-care-system-impact-on-the-independent-living-choices-of-disabled-people/
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Barod BRIDGE project blog
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
Mental health and Physical Activity in Northern Ireland
Most people know that engaging in physical activity is not only important for our physical health, but also our mental wellbeing.
Much of the existing research focuses on the impact of physical activity on depression (Hull, 2012) with multiple studies finding that physical activity is associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms. The Royal College of Psychiatrists states that a moderate level of exercise can be as good as antidepressants or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)[1].
The relationship between physical activity and mental health appears to work both ways (Steinmo, Hagger-Johnson & Shahab, 2014), with increased physical activity resulting in better mental health and vice versa. Not surprisingly, then, those with severe mental health problems are less likely to engage in physical activity and more likely to be physically unwell (Hull, 2012).
The evidence for the positive effects of exercise on a range of mental health problems is growing, with studies demonstrating that exercise can improve the lives of people with schizophrenia (Rimes et al., 2015). Despite this, exercise interventions are often neglected in mental health care (Callaghan, 2004) and the mortality gap for people with serious mental health problems continues to widen. This is particularly pernicious in Northern Ireland, a country in which the recent political turmoil has exacerbated the mental health crisis to catastrophic proportions.
The Mental Health Foundation, along with several partners, including Queen’s University Belfast and three Recovery Colleges (Northern Recovery College, South Eastern Recovery College and Western Recovery College), has received funding from DRILL (Disability Research on Independent Living & Learning) to conduct a one-year pilot study to address the high levels of physical ill-health and preventable deaths of people with serious mental health problems in Northern Ireland.
What the study will involve
Co-production will inform the entire study. Individuals with lived experience of psychosocial difficulties will receive accredited training from Queen’s University Belfast to become peer-researchers on this study. They will then have an instrumental role in co-producing the programme design, research methodology, analysis, research findings recommendations and promotion. The physical exercise programme targeted to people with a range of serious mental health problems will be developed from a series of co-production workshops with people with lived experience, and consultations with recovery colleges, sports organisations and health professionals. Participants will undergo tailored health checks to determine the programme’s impact on participants’ physical and mental health measures.
[1] http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/treatments/physicalactivity.aspx
The sustainability of the programme will be explored via interviews and consultations with partners, and recommendations and next steps will be identified.
The shocking fact that more people in Northern Ireland have died by suicide in the past 18 years than were killed during 30 years of conflict[1] highlights the urgency of the situation. Mental health problems can no longer be ignored, and innovative, creative approaches and solutions should be explored.
This is exactly what we seek to do with our partners through this large-scale physical exercise programme designed to empower people with serious mental health problems to incorporate physical activity into their lives. Not only does this innovative study seek to develop the evidence base for physical exercise interventions in mental health, it also hopes to provide practical solutions that will improve the delivery of services in Northern Ireland.
References:
Callaghan, P. (2004). Exercise: a neglected intervention in mental health care? Journal Of Psychiatric And Mental Health Nursing, 11(4), 476-483.
Hull, D. (2012) The relationship between physical activity and mental health: a summary of evidence and policy (Paper 198/12). Retrieved from Northern Ireland Assembly website: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/
Rimes, R., de Souza Moura, A., Lamego, M., de Sa Filho, A., Manochio, J., & Paes, F. et al. (2015). Effects of Exercise on Physical and Mental Health, and Cognitive and Brain Functions in Schizophrenia: Clinical and Experimental Evidence. CNS & Neurological Disorders – Drug Targets, 14(10), 1244-1254.
Steinmo, S., Hagger-Johnson, G., & Shahab, L. (2014). Bidirectional association between mental health and physical activity in older adults: Whitehall II prospective cohort study. Preventive Medicine, 66, 74-79.
[1] https://www.nisra.gov.uk/publications/suicide-statistics
For further information please refer to project
- Empowering people with mental health problems to undertake or increase physical activity
- Mental Health Foundation Website
Prevous page or post | Next page or post
/div>