Risk taking is often associated with creativity, yet little evidence exists to support this association. The present article aimed to systematically explore this association. In two studies, we investigated the relationship between five different domains of risk taking (financial, health and safety, recreational, ethical and social) and five different measures of creativity. Results from the first (laboratory-based) offline study suggested that creativity is associated with high risk taking tendencies in the social domain but not the other domains. Indeed, in the second study conducted online with a larger and diverse sample, the likelihood of social risk taking was the strongest predictor of creative personality and ideation scores. These findings illustrate the necessity to treat creativity and risk taking as multi-dimensional traits and the need to have a more nuanced framework of creativity and other related cognitive functions.

No abstract

retest reliability, and Rasch model analysis of the School Participation Questionnaire (SPQ), a tool for teachers to assess personal and environmental determinants of school participation. Method: Teachers of children with additional support needs, including intellectual disability, autism, and learning difficulties completed measures. Data were collected using the SPQ and the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth (PEM-CY). Test-retest and interrater reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Concurrent and convergent validity were explored via correlations with the PEM-CY. Further psychometrics were examined using a Rasch model. Results: One hundred and eighty-seven children (136 [72.7%] male; mean age 9y [range 5y 6mo-12y 10mo, SD 2y]) were assessed by 67 teachers. Cronbach's alpha, test-retest, and interrater reliability were acceptable-excellent across each SPQ scale (alphas=0.89, 0.9, 0.94, 0.79; 0.61, 0.78, 0.62; interrater ICCs=0.85, 0.71, 0.90, 0.81). Concurrent and convergent validity were confirmed with significant positive correlations between SPQ and PEM-CY. After Mokken and Rasch model analysis, person and item reliability were good, and unidimensionality was confirmed. Mean administration time was 8.2 minutes.

Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic increased pressure upon healthcare resources resulting in compromised health services. Enforced national lockdown led to people being unable to access essential services in addition to limiting contact with social support networks. The novel coronavirus, and subsequent condition known as long covid were not well-understood and clinicians were not supported by existing guidelines or pathways. Our study explored people's experiences of healthcare during this period with a person-centered “lens.”Methods: Ninety-seven people participated in our online survey about their experiences of the pandemic, particularly while socially isolated and their experiences of healthcare. Following completion of the survey, 11 of these participants agreed to further semi-structured interviews to explore this further in their own words. Interview conversations were transcribed, checked; together with the responses to open questions in the survey. The data were then analyzed thematically by members of the research team. We conducted framework analysis from a post-positivist perspective, using the Person-centered Practice Framework to explore participants' experiences.Results: There were few examples of people describing person-centered care. People experienced barriers to accessing support, and negative experiences of care that represented complexities enacting person-centered care at each level of the framework (processes, practice environment, prerequisites, and macro context). These barriers were influenced greatly by the pandemic, for example, with health professionals being harder to access. Some experiences related to the ways in which health professionals responded to the context, for example, positive examples included active listening, recognition of people's experiences, seeking to find out more, and engaging in collaborative problem-solving.Discussion: People want to feel heard, supported to navigate healthcare systems, source trustworthy information, find appropriate services, and collaborate in learning and problem-solving with healthcare professionals. There have been enormous challenges to the provision of healthcare throughout the pandemic. Moving forward is crucial with emphasis on overcoming barriers to person-centered healthcare. This should focus on steps now and also in planning for the possibility of further rapid changes in the demand for and provision of healthcare.

Objectives of study stage 1 were to: explore people’s experiences of illness due to COVID-19 while feeling socially isolated or socially isolating; identify perceptions of what would support recovery; and synthesise insights into recommendations for supporting people after COVID-19. Study stage 2 objectives were to engage stakeholders in evaluating these recommendations and analyse likely influences on access to the support identified.DesignA two-stage, multimethod cross-sectional study was conducted from a postpositivist perspective. Stage 1 included an international online survey of people’s experiences of illness, particularly COVID-19, in isolation (n=675 full responses). Stage 2 involved a further online survey (n=43), two tweetchats treated as large online focus groups (n=60 and n=27 people tweeting), two smaller focus groups (both n=4) and one interview (both using MS teams).SettingStage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK.ParticipantsAnyone aged 18+ and able to complete a survey in English could participate. Stage 2 included health professionals, advocates and people with lived experience.Main outcome measuresDescriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data.ResultsOf those responding fully to stage 1 (mean age 44 years); 130 (19%) had experienced COVID-19 in isolation; 45 had recovered, taking a mean of 5.3 (range 1–54) weeks. 85 did not feel they had recovered; fatigue and varied ‘other’ symptoms were most prevalent and also had most substantial negative impacts. Our draft recommendations were highly supported by respondents to stage 2 and refined to produce final recommendations.ConclusionsRecommendations support access to progressive intensity and specialism of support, addressing access barriers that might inadvertently increase health inequalities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and learning are crucial, including the person with COVID-19 and/or Long Covid in the planning and decision making throughout.