Search

Background: The 'overall insecticidal effect' is a key measure used to evaluate public health pesticides for indoor use in experimental hut trials. It depends on the proportion of mosquitoes that are killed out of those that enter the treated hut, intrinsic mortality in the control hut, and the ratio of mosquitoes entering the treatment hut to those entering the control hut. This paper critically examines the way the effect is defined, and discusses how it can be used to infer effectiveness of intervention programmes. Findings: The overall insecticidal effect, as defined by the World Health Organization in 2006, can be negative when deterrence from entering the treated hut is high, even if all mosquitoes that enter are killed, wrongly suggesting that the insecticide enhances mosquito survival. Also in the absence of deterrence, even if the insecticide kills all mosquitoes in the treatment hut, the insecticidal effect is less than 100%, unless intrinsic mortality is nil. A proposed alternative definition for the measurement of the overall insecticidal effect has the desirable range of 0 to 1 (100%), provided mortality among non-repelled mosquitoes in the treated hut is less than the corresponding mortality in the control hut. This definition can be built upon to formulate the coverage-dependent insecticidal effectiveness of an intervention programme. Coverage-dependent population protection against feeding can be formulated similarly. Conclusions: This paper shows that the 2006 recommended quantity for measuring the overall insecticidal effect is problematic, and proposes an alternative quantity with more desirable properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) remains a complex and unclear phenomenon, often characterized by the report of various, non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) when an EMF source is present or perceived by the individual. The lack of validated criteria for defining and assessing IEI-EMF affects the quality of the relevant research, hindering not only the comparison or integration of study findings, but also the identification and management of patients by health care providers. The objective of this review was to evaluate and summarize the criteria that previous studies employed to identify IEI-EMF participants. Methods: An extensive literature search was performed for studies published up to June 2011. We searched EMBASE, Medline, Psychinfo, Scopus and Web of Science. Additionally, citation analyses were performed for key papers, reference sections of relevant papers were searched, conference proceedings were examined and a literature database held by the Mobile Phones Research Unit of King's College London was reviewed. Results: Sixty-three studies were included. "Hypersensitivity to EMF" was the most frequently used descriptive term. Despite heterogeneity, the criteria predominantly used to identify IEI-EMF individuals were: 1. Self-report of being (hyper)sensitive to EMF. 2. Attribution of NSPS to at least one EMF source. 3. Absence of medical or psychiatric/ psychological disorder capable of accounting for these symptoms 4. Symptoms should occur soon (up to 24 hours) after the individual perceives an exposure source or exposed area. (Hyper)sensitivity to EMF was either generalized (attribution to various EMF sources) or source-specific. Experimental studies used a larger number of criteria than those of observational design and performed more frequently a medical examination or interview as prerequisite for inclusion. Conclusions: Considerable heterogeneity exists in the criteria used by the researchers to identify IEI-EMF, due to explicit differences in their conceptual frameworks. Further work is required to produce consensus criteria not only for research purposes but also for use in clinical practice. This could be achieved by the development of an international protocol enabling a clearly defined case definition for IEI-EMF and a validated screening tool, with active involvement of medical practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision-making and patients' choice of interventions are areas of increasing importance, not least seen in the light of the fact that chronic conditions are increasing, interventions considered important for public health, and still non-acceptance of especially risk-reducing treatments of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is prevalent. A better understanding of patients' medication-taking behavior is needed and may be reached by studying the reasons why people accept or decline medication recommendations. The aim of this paper was to identify factors that may influence people's decisions and reasoning for accepting or declining a cardiovascularpreventive medication offer.Methods: From a random sample of 4,000 people aged 40-59 years in a Danish population, 1,169 participants were asked to imagine being at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and being offered a preventive medication.After receiving 'complete' information about effectiveness of the medication they were asked whether they would accept medication. Finally, they were asked about reasons for the decision.Results: A total of 725 (67%) of 1,082 participants accepted the medication offer. Even quite large effects of medication (up to 8 percentage points absolute risk reduction) had a smaller impact on acceptance to medication than personal experience with cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, increasing age of the participant and living with a partner were significantly associated with acceptance. Some 45% of the respondents accepting justified their choice as being for health reasons, and they were more likely to be women, live alone, have higher income and higher education levels. Among those who did not accept the medication offer, 56% indicated that they would rather prefer to change lifestyle.Conclusions: Medication effectiveness seems to have a moderate influence on people's decisions to accept preventive medication, while factors such as personal experience with cardiovascular disease may have an equally strong or stronger influence, indicating that practitioners could do well to carefully identify the reasons for their patients' treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]