Search

Background Self-tests are available to consumers for more than 25 conditions, ranging from infectious diseases to cardiovascular risk factors. Self-tests are defined as in-vitro tests on body materials such as blood, urine, faeces, or saliva that are initiated by consumers to diagnose a particular disorder or risk factor without involving a medical professional. In 2006, 16% of a sample of Dutch Internet users had ever used at least one self-test and 17% intended to use a self-test in the future. The objectives of this study are to determine (1) the frequency of self-test use, (2) the consumers' reasons for using or not using a self-test, (3) the information that is used by self-testers in the different self-test stages and the consumers' interpretation of the quality of this information, (4) the consumers' response to self-test results in terms of their confidence in the result, reassurance by the test result, and follow-up behaviour, (5) the information consumers report to need in the decision making process of using or not using a self-test, and in further management on the basis of the self-test result, and (6) the quality of the currently available consumer information on a selected set of self-tests. Methods Mixed methods study with (1) a cross-sectional study consisting of a two-phase Internet-questionnaire, (2) semi-structured interviews with self-testers and consumers who intend to use a self-test, and (3) the assessment of the quality of consumer information of self-tests. The Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour will serve as the theoretical basis for the questionnaires and the interview topic guides. Conclusions The self-testing area is still in a state of flux and therefore it is expected that self-test use will increase in the future. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which combines quantitative and qualitative research to identify consumers' information needs and use concerning self-testing, and the consumers' actual follow-up behaviour based on the self-test result, and simultaneously investigates the quality of the currently available consumer information. The results of this study will be used as an input in developing consumer information on self-testing.

Background Several studies have investigated the relationship between dietary patterns and the risk of bladder cancer (BC) in different regions including Europe, the United States, and Asia, with no conclusive evidence. A meta-analysis was undertaken to integrate the most recent information on the relationship between a data-driven Western diet (WD), the Mediterranean diet (MD), and dietary-inflammatory-index (DII) and the risk of BC. Method We looked for published research into the relationship between dietary patterns and the incidence of BC in the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up until February 2021. Using a multivariate random-effects model, we compared the highest and lowest categories of WD, MD and DII patterns and provided the relative risk (RR) or odds ratios (OR) and 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) for the relevant relationships. Results The analysis comprised 12 papers that were found to be suitable after scanning the databases. Both case-control (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.94; I-2 = 49.9%, n = 2) and cohort studies (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.97; I-2 = 63%, n = 4) found a substantial inverse association between MD and BC. In addition, although cohort studies (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.37, 1.70; I-2 = 0%, n = 2) showed a direct association between WD and BC, case-control studies (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.81, 1.88; I-2 = 68.5%, n = 2) did not. In cohort studies, we found no significant association between DII and BC (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93, 1.12; I-2 = 38.5%, n = 2). In case-control studies, however, a strong direct association between DII and BC was discovered (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23, 2.85; I-2 = 0%, n = 2). Conclusion The current meta-analysis showed that MD and WD have protective and detrimental effects on BC risk, respectively. No significant association between DII and the risk of BC was observed. More research is still needed to confirm the findings. Additional study is warranted to better understand the etiological mechanisms underlying how different dietary patterns affect BC.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of highly effective direct-acting antiviral therapy has changed the hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment paradigm. However, a recent update on HCV epidemiology in incarcerated settings is necessary to accurately determine the extent of the problem, provide information to policymakers and public healthcare, and meet the World Health Organization's goals by 2030. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the prevalence of HCV Ab and RNA in incarcerated settings.METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for papers published between January 2013 and August 2021. We included studies with information on the prevalence of HCV Ab or RNA in incarcerated settings. A random-effects meta-analysis was done to calculate the pooled prevalence and meta-regression to explore heterogeneity.RESULTS: Ninety-two unique sources reporting data for 36 countries were included. The estimated prevalence of HCV Ab ranged from 0.3% to 74.4%. HCV RNA prevalence (available in 46 sources) ranged from 0% to 56.3%. Genotypes (available in 19 sources) 1(a) and 3 were most frequently reported in incarcerated settings. HCV/HIV coinfection (available in 36 sources) was highest in Italy, Estonia, Pakistan, and Spain. Statistical analysis revealed that almost all observed heterogeneity reflects real differences in prevalence between studies, considering I2 was very high in the meta-analysis.CONCLUSIONS: HCV in incarcerated settings is still a significant problem with a higher prevalence than in the general population. It is of utmost importance to start screening for HCV (Ab and RNA) in incarcerated settings to give clear, reliable and recent figures to plan further treatment. This is all in the context of meeting the 2030 WHO targets which are only less than a decade away.TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020162616.

Background Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is promoted as a decision-informing tool by public health and governmental agencies. HIA is beneficial when carried out as part of policy development but is also valuable as a methodology when a policy is being implemented to identify and understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions, particularly when a decision needs to be taken rapidly to protect the population. This paper focusses on a HIA of the ‘Staying at Home and Social Distancing Policy’ or ‘lockdown’ in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales conducted by the Welsh national public health institute. It describes the process and findings, captures the learning and discusses how the process has been used to better understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions beyond direct health harm. It also examines the role of public health institutes in promoting and using HIA. Methods A HIA was conducted following a standard HIA five step process. A literature review was undertaken alongside 15 qualitative semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and relevant health and demographic data were collated. The results were triangulated and analysed to form a holistic assessment of the policy decision and its impacts. Results A wide range of major health and well-being impacts of the lockdown in Wales were identified across the determinants of health, which included positive and negative social, economic, environmental and mental well-being impacts beyond the impact on direct health. Populations affected included children and young people, those on low incomes and women as well as those whose health has been directly impacted by COVID-19 such as older people. The work highlighted the benefit that HIA can bring in emphasizing impacts which can inform policy and shared learning with others. Conclusion HIA is a largely underused tool to understand the impact of policy and political decisions, particularly when a decision has been taken at speed. This case study highlights how HIA provide evidence and information for advocacy and further work by public health institutes, health agencies and policy makers.

Background The study aims to test the differential effects of a web-based text and a web-based video-driven computer-tailored approach for lower socio-economic status (LSES) and higher socio-economic status (HSES) smokers which incorporate multiple computer-tailored feedback moments. The two programs differ only in the mode of delivery (video- versus text-based messages). The paper aims to describe the development and design of the two computer-tailored programs. Methods/design Respondents who smoked at the time of the study inclusion, who were motivated to quit within the following six months and who were aged 18 or older were included in the program. The study is a randomized control trial with a 2 (video/text) * 2(LSES/HSES) design. Respondents were assigned either to one of the intervention groups (text versus video tailored feedback) or to the control group (non-tailored generic advice). In all three conditions participants were asked to fill in the baseline questionnaire based on the I-Change model. The questionnaire assessed socio-demographics, attitude towards smoking, knowledge, self-efficacy, social influence, depression, level of addiction, action planning, goal actions, intention to quit smoking, seven-day point prevalence and continued abstinence. Follow-up measurements were conducted at six and twelve months after baseline. Discussion The present paper describes the development of the two computer-tailored smoking cessation programs, their components and the design of the study. The study results reveal different working mechanisms of multiple tailored smoking cessation interventions and will help us to gain more insight into effective strategies to target different subgroups, especially smokers with a lower socio-economic status. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register NTR3102

Background: Relatively little knowledge is available to date about health literacy among the general population in Europe. It is important to gain insights into health literacy competences among the general population, as this might contribute to more effective health promotion and help clarify socio-economic disparities in health. This paper is part of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU). It aims to add to the body of theoretical knowledge about health literacy by measuring perceived difficulties with health information in various domains of health, looking at a number of competences. The definition and measure of health literacy is still topic of debate and hardly any instruments are available that are applicable for the general population. The objectives were to obtain an initial measure of health literacy in a sample of the general population in the Netherlands and to relate this measure to education, income, perceived social status, age, and sex. Methods: The HLS-EU questionnaire was administered face-to-face in a sample of 925 Dutch adults, during July 2011. Perceived difficulties with the health literacy competences for accessing, understanding, appraising and applying information were measured within the domains of healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion. Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to explore the associations between health literacy competences and education, income, perceived social status, age, and sex. Results: Perceived difficulties with health information and their association with demographic and socio-economic variables vary according to the competence and health domain addressed. Having a low level of education or a low perceived social status or being male were consistently found to be significantly related to relatively low health literacy scores, mainly for accessing and understanding health information. Conclusions: Perceived difficulties with health information vary between competences and domains of health. Health literacy competences are associated with indicators of socio-economic position and with the domain in which health information is provided.

Background A potential new treatment in smoking cessation and relapse prevention is nicotine vaccination which is based on active immunization against the nicotine molecule. This immunization will elicit the immune system to produce nicotine-specific antibodies that sequester nicotine in the blood stream, after inhaling tobacco products. The resulting antibody-antigen is too large to cross the blood–brain barrier and is therefore postulated to attenuate the rewarding effect of nicotine by preventing the latter from reaching its receptors in the brain and causing the release of dopamine. The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a phase IIb, multi-center, double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial to assess the efficacy of the nicotine vaccine NicVAX® co-administered with varenicline (Champix®) and intensive counseling as an aid in smoking cessation and relapse prevention. Methods/design Two centers will include a total of 600 smokers who are motivated to quit smoking. At week −2 these smokers will be randomized, in a 1:1 ratio, to either 6 injections of NicVAX® or placebo, both co-administered with 12-weeks of varenicline treatment, starting at week 0. The target quit day will be set after 7 days of varenicline treatment at week 1. Smokers will be followed up for 54 weeks. The primary outcome is defined as biochemically validated prolonged smoking abstinence from week 9 to 52. Secondary outcomes include safety, immunogenicity, smoking abstinence from week 37 to 52, abstinence from week 9 to 24, abstinence in the subset of subjects with the highest antibody response, and lapse/relapse rate. Discussion This is the first study to assess the efficacy of a nicotine conjugate vaccine in combination with an evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapy (varenicline) to quit smoking. Although NicVAX® is primarily designed as an aid to smoking cessation, our study is designed to explore its potential to maintain abstinence and prevent relapse. The results of this trial will give a unique insight in the potential of nicotine vaccination for relapse prevention. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: (NCT00995033)

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle and/or low back pain is a controversial syndrome because insight in etiology and prognosis is lacking. The controversy relates to factors eliciting pain and some prognostic factors such as the interpretation of pain at the symphysis. Recent research about treatment strategies also reflects those various opinions, in fact suggesting there is professional uncertainty about the optimal approach. Currently, physiotherapists often prescribe a pain-contingent treatment regime of relative rest and avoiding several day-to-day activities. Additionally, treatment more often includes an exercise program to guide rectification of the muscle imbalance and alignment of the pelvic girdle. Effectiveness of those interventions is not proven and the majority of the studies are methodologically flawed. Investigators draw particular attention to biomedical factors but there is growing evidence that important prognostic issues such as biopsychosocial factors appear to be even more important as point of action in a treatment program. METHODS/DESIGN: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a tailor-made treatment program with respect to biopsychosocial factors in primary care. The effect of the experimental intervention and usual care are evaluated as they are applied in primary health care. The trial is embedded in a cohort study that is designed as a longitudinal, prospective study, which studies prevalence, etiology, severity and prognosis during pregnancy until one year after delivery. The present paper focuses on choices regarding recruitment procedures, in-/exclusion criteria and the development of a well-timed intervention. DISCUSSION: This section briefly discusses the actions taken to minimize bias in the design, the proper time-window for the experimental intervention and the contrast between the experimental intervention and usual care.