Search

Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Calls have been made to rethink the mental health support currently available for young people. This study aims to help re-focus and reduce the inaccessibility of mental health services by offering an adapted version of a theoretically-driven, evidence-based, guided psychosocial intervention known as 'Groups 4 Health' (G4H). To date, the G4H intervention has mainly been trialled in Australia, with promising positive effects on social connection, mental health and well-being. The present study examines the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial when delivering the G4H intervention for young people in the UK. Methods: The TOGETHER study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of an adapted version of the G4H intervention. Participants are aged 16–25, currently experiencing mental health difficulties and recruited from mental health services. The target sample size is 30, with 15 in each trial arm. Participants are randomly allocated to either G4H plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone. The primary outcomes of interest are the feasibility of recruitment, randomisation, data collection and retention to the study at 10 and 14 week follow up, as well as the acceptability, and accessibility of the study protocol and G4H intervention. Discussion: The results of this study will indicate if further optimisation is required to improve the feasibility, acceptability and accessibility of the intervention and study protocol procedures as perceived by end users and practitioners. This offers a significant opportunity to support the local and national demand for accessible, innovative, and effective psychosocial youth mental health support. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12505807). Registration date: 11/04/2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predictive genetic testing can provide information about whether or not someone will develop or is likely to develop a specific condition at a later stage in life. Economic evaluation can assess the value of money for such testing. Studies on the economic evaluation of predictive genetic testing have been carried out in a variety of settings, and this research aims to conduct a scoping review of findings from these studies. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases with combined search terms, from 2019 to 2022. Relevant studies from 2013 to 2019 in a previous systematic review were also included. The study followed the recommended stages for undertaking a scoping review. A total of 53 studies were included, including 33 studies from the previous review and 20 studies from the search of databases. A significant number of studies focused on the US, UK, and Australia (34%, 23%, and 11%). The most frequently included health conditions were cancer and cardiovascular diseases (68% and 19%). Over half of the studies compared predictive genetic testing with no genetic testing, and the majority of them concluded that at least some type of genetic testing was cost-effective compared to no testing (94%). Some studies stated that predictive genetic testing is becoming more cost-effective with the trend of lowering genetic testing costs. Studies on predictive genetic testing covered various health conditions, particularly cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Most studies indicated that predictive genetic testing is cost-effective compared to no testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Automatic facial recognition technology (AFR) is increasingly used in criminal justice systems around the world, yet to date there has not been an international survey of public attitudes toward its use. In Study 1, we ran focus groups in the UK, Australia and China (countries at different stages of adopting AFR) and in Study 2 we collected data from over 3,000 participants in the UK, Australia and the USA using a questionnaire investigating attitudes towards AFR use in criminal justice systems. Our results showed that although overall participants were aligned in their attitudes and reasoning behind them, there were some key differences across countries. People in the USA were more accepting of tracking citizens, more accepting of private companies' use of AFR, and less trusting of the police using AFR than people in the UK and Australia. Our results showed that support for the use of AFR depends greatly on what the technology is used for and who it is used by. We recommend vendors and users do more to explain AFR use, including details around accuracy and data protection. We also recommend that governments should set legal boundaries around the use of AFR in investigative and criminal justice settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health policies and recommendations aim to be informed by the best available evidence. Evidence underpinning e-cigarettes policy recommendations has been necessarily limited due to the novelty of the technology and the lack of long-term epidemiological studies and trials. Some public health bodies have actively encouraged e-cigarette use whilst others have raised concerns over introducing new health risks and renormalising tobacco smoking. Using citation network analysis we investigated the author conflicts of interest and study funding statements within sources of evidence used by public health bodies when making recommendations about e-cigarette policy. Methods: We conducted citation network analysis of public health recommendation documents across four purposively selected diverse jurisdictions: WHO, UK, Australia, and USA. We extracted all citations from 15 public health recommendation documents, with more detailed data collected for influential citations (used in 3+ recommendation documents). We analysed the relationships between the sources of evidence used across jurisdictions using block modelling to determine if similar groups of documents were used across different jurisdictions. We assessed the frequency and nature of conflicts of interest. Results: 1700 unique citations were included across the 15 public health recommendation documents, with zero to 923 citations per document (median = 63, IQR = 7.5–132). The evidence base underpinning public health recommendations did not systematically differ across jurisdictions. Of the 1700 citations included, the majority were journal articles (n = 1179). Across 1081 journal articles published between 1998–2018, 200 declared a conflict of interest, 288 contained no mention of conflicts of interest, and 593 declared none. Conflicts of interest were reported with tobacco (3%; n = 37 journal articles of 1081), e-cigarette (7%; n = 72), and pharmaceutical companies (12%; n = 127), with such conflicts present even in the most recent years. There were 53 influential citations, the most common study type was basic science research without human subjects (e.g. examination of aerosols and e-liquids) (n = 18) followed by systematic review (n = 10); with randomised control trial being least common (n = 4). Network analysis identified clusters of highly-cited articles with a higher prevalence of conflicts of interest. Conclusion: Public health bodies across different jurisdictions drew upon similar sources of evidence, despite articulating different policy approaches to e-cigarettes. The evidence drawn upon, including the most influential evidence, contained substantial conflicts of interest (including relationships with e-cigarette and tobacco industries). Processes to explicitly manage conflicts of interest arising from the underlying evidence base may be required when developing public health recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many studies have explored patients' experiences of dialysis and other treatments for kidney failure. This is the first qualitative multi-site international study of how staff perceive the process of a patient's transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis. Current literature suggests that transitions are poorly coordinated and may result in increased patient morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to understand staff perspectives of transition and to identify areas where clinical practice could be improved. Methods: Sixty-one participants (24 UK and 37 Australia), representing a cross-section of kidney care staff, took part in seven focus groups and sixteen interviews. Data were analysed inductively and findings were synthesised across the two countries. Results: For staff, good clinical practice included: effective communication with patients, well planned care pathways and continuity of care. However, staff felt that how they communicated with patients about the treatment journey could be improved. Staff worried they inadvertently made patients fear haemodialysis when trying to explain to them why going onto peritoneal dialysis first is a good option. Despite staff efforts to make transitions smooth, good continuity of care between modalities was only reported in some of the Australian hospitals where, unlike the UK, patients kept the same consultant. Timely access to an appropriate service, such as a psychologist or social worker, was not always available when staff felt it would be beneficial for the patient. Staff were aware of a disparity in access to kidney care and other healthcare professional services between some patient groups, especially those living in remote areas. This was often put down to the lack of funding and capacity within each hospital. Conclusions: This research found that continuity of care between modalities was valued by staff but did not always happen. It also highlighted a number of areas for consideration when developing ways to improve care and provide appropriate support to patients as they transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Health-related websites are an important source of information for the public. Increasing public awareness of overdiagnosis and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in breast cancer screening may facilitate more informed decision-making. This study assessed the extent to which such information was included on prominent health websites oriented towards the general public, and evaluated how it was explained. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Websites identified through Google searches in England (United Kingdom) and New South Wales (Australia) for “breast cancer screening” and further websites included based on our prior knowledge of relevant organisations. Main Outcomes: Content analysis was used to determine whether information on overdiagnosis or DCIS existed on each site, how the concepts were described, and what statistics were used to quantify overdiagnosis. Results: After exclusions, ten UK websites and eight Australian websites were considered relevant and evaluated. They originated from charities, health service providers, government agencies, and an independent health organisation. Most contained some information on overdiagnosis (and/or DCIS). Descriptive information was similar across websites. Among UK websites, statistical information was often based on estimates from the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening; the most commonly provided statistic was the ratio of breast cancer deaths prevented to overdiagnosed cases (1:3). A range of other statistics was included, such as the yearly number of overdiagnosed cases and the proportion of women screened who would be overdiagnosed. Information on DCIS and statistical information was less common on the Australian websites. Conclusions: Online information about overdiagnosis has become more widely available in 2015–16 compared with the limited accessibility indicated by older research. However, there may be scope to offer more information on DCIS and overdiagnosis statistics on Australian websites. Moreover, the variability in how estimates are presented across UK websites may be confusing for the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Self-harm and suicide behaviours are a major public health concern. Several factors are associated with these behaviours among military communities. Identifying these factors may have important implications for policy and clinical services. The aim of this review was to identify the risk and protective factors associated with self-harm and suicide behaviours among serving and ex-serving personnel of the United Kingdom Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force and New Zealand Defence Force., Methods: A systematic search of seven online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs and CINAHL) was conducted alongside cross-referencing, in October 2022. Following an a priori PROSPERO approved protocol (CRD42022348867), papers were independently screened and assessed for quality. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach., Results: Overall, 28 papers were included: 13 from Canada, 10 from the United Kingdom, five from Australia and none from New Zealand. Identified risk factors included being single/ex-relationship, early service leavers, shorter length of service (but not necessarily early service leavers), junior ranks, exposure to deployment-related traumatic events, physical and mental health diagnoses, and experience of childhood adversity. Protective factors included being married/in a relationship, higher educational attainment, employment, senior ranks, and higher levels of perceived social support., Conclusion: Adequate care and support are a necessity for the military community. Prevention and intervention strategies for self-harm and suicide behaviours may be introduced early and may promote social networks as a key source of support. This review found a paucity of peer-reviewed research within some populations. More peer-reviewed research is needed, particularly among these populations where current work is limited, and regarding modifiable risk and protective factors., Competing Interests: CW is currently in receipt of a funded PhD studentship via Phase 4 of the King’s Centre for Military Health Research Health and Wellbeing Cohort Study funded by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs (OVA), Cabinet Office, UK Government. BC is currently in receipt of a funded PhD studentship from The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK Government. AS is a full-time member of the British Army seconded to King’s College London. NTF is partly funded by the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence (MOD). MLS is fully funded by a grant from the OVA. SAMS is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR Advanced Fellowship, Dr Sharon Stevelink, NIHR300592. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the OVA, the ESRC, the British Army, the MOD, the NHS, or the NIHR. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to PLOS ONE. Any conflicts of interest have been outlined in the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Williamson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

This paper primarily aims to provide a citation-based method for exploring the scholarly network of artificial intelligence (AI)-related research in the information science (IS) domain, especially from Global North (GN) and Global South (GS) perspectives. Three research objectives were addressed, namely (1) the publication patterns in the field, (2) the most influential articles and researched keywords in the field, and (3) the visualization of the scholarly network between GN and GS researchers between the years 2010 and 2020. On the basis of the PRISMA statement, longitudinal research data were retrieved from the Web of Science and analyzed. Thirty-two AI-related keywords were used to retrieve relevant quality articles. Finally, 149 articles accompanying the follow-up 8838 citing articles were identified as eligible sources. A co-citation network analysis was adopted to scientifically visualize the intellectual structure of AI research in GN and GS networks. The results revealed that the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom are the most productive GN countries; by contrast, China and India are the most productive GS countries. Next, the 10 most frequently co-cited AI research articles in the IS domain were identified. Third, the scholarly networks of AI research in the GN and GS areas were visualized. Between 2010 and 2015, GN researchers in the IS domain focused on applied research involving intelligent systems (e.g., decision support systems); between 2016 and 2020, GS researchers focused on big data applications (e.g., geospatial big data research). Both GN and GS researchers focused on technology adoption research (e.g., AI-related products and services) throughout the investigated period. Overall, this paper reveals the intellectual structure of the scholarly network on AI research and several applications in the IS literature. The findings provide research-based evidence for expanding global AI research., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The aim of this study was to examine aspects of children's health literacy; the information sources they were accessing, their information preferences, their perceived understanding of and their reported information needs in relation to COVID-19. An online survey for children aged 7-12 years of age and parent/caregivers from the UK, Sweden, Brazil, Spain, Canada and Australia was conducted between 6th of April and the 1st of June 2020. The surveys included demographic questions and both closed and open questions focussing on access to and understanding of COVID-19 information. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis procedures were conducted. The findings show that parents are the main source of information for children during the pandemic in most countries (89%, n = 347), except in Sweden where school was the main source of information. However, in many cases parents chose to shield, filter or adapt their child's access to information about COVID-19, especially in relation to the death rates within each country. Despite this, children in this study reported knowing that COVID-19 was deadly and spreads quickly. This paper argues for a community rather than individual approach to addressing children's health literacy needs during a pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.