Search

IntroductionThe Initial Medication Adherence (IMA) intervention is a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making intervention to improve initial medication adherence addressed to patients in need of new treatments for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in primary care (PC). This pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the IMA intervention and the feasibility of a cluster-RCT to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.MethodsA 3-month pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation was conducted in five PC centers in Catalonia (Spain). Electronic health data were descriptively analyzed to test the availability and quality of records of the trial outcomes (initiation, implementation, clinical parameters and use of services). Recruitment and retention rates of professionals were analyzed. Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews with professionals (general practitioners, nurses, and community pharmacists) and patients were conducted to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Three discussion groups with a total of fifteen patients were performed to review and redesign the intervention decision aids. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.ResultsA total of 901 new treatments were prescribed to 604 patients. The proportion of missing data in the electronic health records was up to 30% for use of services and around 70% for clinical parameters 5 months before and after a new prescription. Primary and secondary outcomes were within plausible ranges and outliers were barely detected. The IMA intervention and its implementation strategy were considered feasible and acceptable by pilot-study participants. Low recruitment and retention rates, understanding of shared decision-making by professionals, and format and content of decision aids were the main barriers to the feasibility of the IMA intervention.DiscussionInvolving patients in the decision-making process is crucial to achieving better clinical outcomes. The IMA intervention is feasible and showed good acceptability among professionals and patients. However, we identified barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention and adapting it to a context affected by the COVID-19 pandemic that should be considered before launching a cluster-RCT. This pilot study identified opportunities for refining the intervention and improving the design of the definitive cluster-RCT to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05094986.

Aircrew (consisting of flight attendants, pilots, or flight engineers/navigators) are exposed to cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) at flight altitude, which originates from solar activity and galactic sources. These exposures accumulate over time and are considerably higher for aircrew compared to the general population, and even higher compared to U.S. radiation workers. Many epidemiological studies on aircrew have observed higher rates of specific cancers compared to the general population. Despite high levels of CIR exposure and elevated rates of cancer in aircrew, a causal link between CIR and cancer has yet to be established. Many challenges still exist in effectively studying this relationship, not the least of which is evaluating CIR exposure separately from the constellation of factors that occur as part of the flight environment. This review concentrates on cancer incidence and mortality observed among aircrew in epidemiologic studies in relation to CIR exposure and limitation trends observed across the literature. The aim of this review is to provide an updated comprehensive summary of the literature that will support future research by identifying epidemiological challenges and highlighting existing increased cancer concerns in an occupation where CIR exposure is anticipated to increase in the future.

During air travel, flight crew (flight attendants, pilots) can be exposed to numerous flight-related environmental DNA damaging agents that may be at the root of an excess risk of cancer and other diseases. This already complex mix of exposures is now joined by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The complex exposures experienced during air travel present a challenge to public health research, but also provide an opportunity to consider new strategies for understanding and countering their health effects. In this article, we focus on threats to genomic integrity that occur during air travel and discuss how these threats and our ability to respond to them may influence the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of range of severity of the symptoms. We also discuss how the virus itself may lead to compromised genome integrity. We argue that dauntingly complex public health problems, such as the challenge of protecting flight crews from COVID-19, must be met with interdisciplinary research teams that include epidemiologists, engineers, and mechanistic biologists.

Introduction: The Initial Medication Adherence (IMA) intervention is a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making intervention to improve initial medication adherence addressed to patients in need of new treatments for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in primary care (PC). This pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the IMA intervention and the feasibility of a cluster-RCT to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention., Methods: A 3-month pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation was conducted in five PC centers in Catalonia (Spain). Electronic health data were descriptively analyzed to test the availability and quality of records of the trial outcomes (initiation, implementation, clinical parameters and use of services). Recruitment and retention rates of professionals were analyzed. Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews with professionals (general practitioners, nurses, and community pharmacists) and patients were conducted to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Three discussion groups with a total of fifteen patients were performed to review and redesign the intervention decision aids. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed., Results: A total of 901 new treatments were prescribed to 604 patients. The proportion of missing data in the electronic health records was up to 30% for use of services and around 70% for clinical parameters 5 months before and after a new prescription. Primary and secondary outcomes were within plausible ranges and outliers were barely detected. The IMA intervention and its implementation strategy were considered feasible and acceptable by pilot-study participants. Low recruitment and retention rates, understanding of shared decision-making by professionals, and format and content of decision aids were the main barriers to the feasibility of the IMA intervention., Discussion: Involving patients in the decision-making process is crucial to achieving better clinical outcomes. The IMA intervention is feasible and showed good acceptability among professionals and patients. However, we identified barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention and adapting it to a context affected by the COVID-19 pandemic that should be considered before launching a cluster-RCT. This pilot study identified opportunities for refining the intervention and improving the design of the definitive cluster-RCT to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05094986., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor declared a shared research network (Research Network in Chronicity, Primary Care and Health Promotion RICAPPS) with the authors MG-G, MO-P, and CG-G at the time of the review., (Copyright © 2022 Corral-Partearroyo, Sánchez-Viñas, Gil-Girbau, Peñarrubia-María, Aznar-Lou, Serrano-Blanco, Carbonell-Duacastella, Gallardo-González, Olmos-Palenzuela and Rubio-Valera.)

Aircrew (consisting of flight attendants, pilots, or flight engineers/navigators) are exposed to cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) at flight altitude, which originates from solar activity and galactic sources. These exposures accumulate over time and are considerably higher for aircrew compared to the general population, and even higher compared to U.S. radiation workers. Many epidemiological studies on aircrew have observed higher rates of specific cancers compared to the general population. Despite high levels of CIR exposure and elevated rates of cancer in aircrew, a causal link between CIR and cancer has yet to be established. Many challenges still exist in effectively studying this relationship, not the least of which is evaluating CIR exposure separately from the constellation of factors that occur as part of the flight environment. This review concentrates on cancer incidence and mortality observed among aircrew in epidemiologic studies in relation to CIR exposure and limitation trends observed across the literature. The aim of this review is to provide an updated comprehensive summary of the literature that will support future research by identifying epidemiological challenges and highlighting existing increased cancer concerns in an occupation where CIR exposure is anticipated to increase in the future., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Scheibler, Toprani, Mordukhovich, Schaefer, Staffa, Nagel and McNeely.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

During air travel, flight crew (flight attendants, pilots) can be exposed to numerous flight-related environmental DNA damaging agents that may be at the root of an excess risk of cancer and other diseases. This already complex mix of exposures is now joined by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The complex exposures experienced during air travel present a challenge to public health research, but also provide an opportunity to consider new strategies for understanding and countering their health effects. In this article, we focus on threats to genomic integrity that occur during air travel and discuss how these threats and our ability to respond to them may influence the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of range of severity of the symptoms. We also discuss how the virus itself may lead to compromised genome integrity. We argue that dauntingly complex public health problems, such as the challenge of protecting flight crews from COVID-19, must be met with interdisciplinary research teams that include epidemiologists, engineers, and mechanistic biologists., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Toprani, Scheibler and Nagel.)

Background: Young people are at heightened risk for mental health problems. Apprenticeships are common pathways into the workforce at a critical developmental period. However, in some cases the working conditions for apprentices present significant challenges to mental wellness. As apprentices are unlikely to utilize traditional services, eHealth and mHealth interventions are a useful means of delivering interventions to this group. The aim of the current paper is to: (1) qualitatively explore the utility of an existing mental health app within an apprentice population; and (2) evaluate the usability, acceptability, feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a modified version of the app ( HeadGear Apprentice ), designed to reduce depressive symptoms in an apprentice working population. Methods: Study One: Twenty-six apprentices (aged 18-30) took part in one of eight (90-min) focus groups. Participants explored the HeadGear app, took part in group discussions, and completed uMARS questionnaires. Modifications were made to the app based on feedback. Study Two: In the follow-up pilot testing, 47 apprentices downloaded and used the modified app over 30 days. Assessment occurred online at baseline, 5-weeks, and 3-months post-baseline. Feasibility was evaluated using consent rates, adherence and attrition. Acceptability was assessed using questionnaires and a post-study interview. Depression, anxiety, well-being, and work performance scores were used to assess preliminary efficacy. Results: Overall, the app was well-received in both studies, with high self-reported scores for acceptability and utility. However, engagement-both in terms of self-report and adherence-was an issue in both studies. In Study Two, users completed approximately one-third of the app's therapeutic content, with increased usage associated with improved outcomes. This had implications for the preliminary effectiveness of the app [depression as measured by the PHQ-9 Cohen's d = 0.27 (95%CI:-0.16-0.69)]. At follow-up users reported improvements in all outcomes, but overall only change in well-being reached statistical significance [ Cohen's d = -0.29 (95%CI:-0.72-0.14)]. Conclusion: Overall, findings from the two studies suggest that an eHealth tool, HeadGear Apprentice , was an acceptable and well-received intervention when adapted to young apprentices. However, questions remain regarding how to improve engagement and adherence to the program. These questions appear critical to effectiveness. The two studies also have implications for awareness raising in this population. Whilst preliminary results were encouraging, these improvements, along with a full-scale efficacy trial, are needed to better understand the utility of smartphone applications for mental health in this population. Trial registration: ACTRN12618001475235 https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375875&isReview=true., (Copyright © 2020 Deady, Glozier, Collins, Einboden, Lavender, Wray, Gayed, Calvo, Christensen, Harvey and Choi.)