• Destructive Interpersonal Conflict in the Workplace: The Effectiveness of Management interventions

      Hoel, H.; Giga, Sabir I. (Manchester Business School, 2006)
      This report, by Helge Hoel and Sabir I Giga of the University of Manchester Business School, with contributions from Brian Faragher, can be accessed here. The research has resulted in the successful completion of the first academic anti-bullying intervention study, comparing the effectiveness of interventions across different organisational contexts and involving the implementation of a complex design in order to apply scientific rigour. Phase 1 established for the first time the apparent scale of bullying at work, and the sectors in which it appears to be most prevalent. Research evidence obtained from this work was input to phase 2 which was completed in 2006 and was designed to Establish a risk assessment tool kit for assessing the risk of bullying in organisations Identify the interventions most likely to be effective in given situations Although the study was unable to establish beyond doubt the efficacy of a particular intervention, there is evidence to suggest that theoretically sound, well planned and aptly delivered interventions can make a difference, particularly when sufficient time is allocated and the proportion of staff being trained is significant enough to have an impact upon behaviour. A conference to launch the findings of this research took place in November 2006. It attracted substantial media attention. The application of these tools in organisations where bullying does occur had the capability to substantially improve morale and staff retention, and to reduce risk of claims for compensation or at employment tribunals.
    • Integrating research and system-wide practice in public health to enhance the evidence-base of interventions: lessons learnt from Better Start Bradford

      Dickerson, J.; Bird, P.K.; Bryant, M.; Dharni, N.; Bridges, S.; Willan, K.; Ahern, S.; Dunn, A.; Nielsen, D.; Uphoff, E.P.; et al. (2018-11)
    • A need-based, multi-level, cross-sectoral framework to explain variations in satisfaction of care needs among people living with dementia

      De Poli, C.; Oyebode, Jan R.; Airoldi, M.; Glover, R. (2020-07)
      BACKGROUND: Provision of care and support for people with dementia and family carers is complex, given variation in how dementia manifests, progresses and affects people, co-morbidities associated with ageing, as well as individual preferences, needs, and circumstances. The traditional service-led approach, where individual needs are assessed against current service provision, has been recognised as unfit to meet such complexity. As a result, people with dementia and family members often fail to receive adequate support, with needs remaining unmet. Current research lacks a conceptual framework for explaining variation in satisfaction of care needs. This work develops a conceptual framework mapped onto the care delivery process to explain variations in whether, when and why care needs of people with dementia are met and to expose individual-, service-, system-level factors that enable or hinder needs satisfaction. METHODS: Data collected through 24 in-depth interviews and two focus groups (10 participants) with people with dementia and family carers living in the North East of England (UK) were analysed thematically to develop a typology of care needs. The need most frequently reported for people with dementia (i.e. for support to go out and about) was analysed using themes stemming from the conceptual framework which combined candidacy and discrepancy theories. RESULTS: The operationalisation of the framework showed that satisfaction of the need to go out was first determined at the point of service access, affected by issues about navigation, adjudication, permeability, users' resistance to offers, users' appearance, and systems-level operating conditions, and, subsequently, at the point of service use, when factors related to service structure and care process determined (dis)satisfaction with service and, hence, further contributed to met or unmet need. CONCLUSION: The conceptual framework pinpoints causes of variations in satisfaction of care needs which can be addressed when designing interventions and service improvements.