No abstract

The group with high perceived stress is characterized by individual and neighbourhood factors with negative impacts on quality of life and risk of illness. This knowledge can guide future stress prevention efforts. Additionally, the results suggest a negative social component where perceived stress, unhealthy lifestyle and low social status are accumulated, and perceived stress might be used as a measure to identify groups characterized by accumulation of risk factors.

The database from DANHES 2007-2008 is unique in its size and diversity of measurements and questionnaire contents. Data can be linked to various registers through the Danish civil registration system, and blood samples are stored in a biobank allowing for genetic analyses. Hence, DANHES 2007-2008 forms the basis for future research projects with a focus on health behaviour and prevention of lifestyle-related diseases.

BackgroundMany people in Western countries do not follow public health physical activity (PA) recommendations. Web-based interventions provide cost- and time-efficient means of delivering individually targeted lifestyle modification at a population level.ObjectiveTo examine whether access to a website with individually tailored feedback and suggestions on how to increase PA led to improved PA, anthropometrics, and health measurements.MethodsPhysically inactive adults (n = 12,287) participating in a nationwide eHealth survey and health examination in Denmark were randomly assigned to either an intervention (website) (n = 6055) or a no-intervention control group (n = 6232) in 2008. The intervention website was founded on the theories of stages of change and of planned behavior and, apart from a forum page where a physiotherapist answered questions about PA and training, was fully automated. After 3 and again after 6 months we emailed participants invitations to answer a Web-based follow-up questionnaire, which included the long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. A subgroup of participants (n = 1190) were invited to a follow-up health examination at 3 months.ResultsLess than 22.0% (694/3156) of the participants logged on to the website once and only 7.0% (222/3159) logged on frequently. We found no difference in PA level between the website and control groups at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. By dividing participants into three groups according to use of the intervention website, we found a significant difference in total and leisure-time PA in the website group. The follow-up health examination showed no significant reductions in body mass index, waist circumference, body fat percentage, and blood pressure, or improvements in arm strength and aerobic fitness in the website group.ConclusionsBased on our findings, we suggest that active users of a Web-based PA intervention can improve their level of PA. However, for unmotivated users, single-tailored feedback may be too brief. Future research should focus on developing more sophisticated interventions with the potential to reach both motivated and unmotivated sedentary individuals.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01295203; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01295203 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6B7HDMqiQ)

Interaction between group participants is considered the distinct advantage and hallmark of focus group research. It is therefore necessary to include the social interaction dynamics in analysing focus group data. Little information is however available on analysis of the social interaction in the group and the analytical outcome for the content of the data. This paper contributes to the discussion of the value of participant interaction in focus group research by analysing sequences of interaction collected recently during a research project. This project utilized focus groups to investigate the perceptions and meanings of alcohol use in Denmark. As a frame for analysing group interaction, elements of conversation analysis were used. The aim of this paper is to illustrate group interaction and its impact on the content of focus group data, and highlight the role and some of the challenges posed by group interaction for moderating the focus group discussion. The interaction analyses led to the construction of four interactional events: Negotiating and constructing normality in interaction, disagreement and/or consensus, homogeneity and the impact on interaction and content, and coming to and making sense of a dead-end (including the risk of hierarchical issues). The interactional events are followed by considerations on the impact they may have on the role of the moderator.