Search

Both schools and caregivers play an important role in supporting children's mental health, but there are few mechanisms for caregivers and school-based mental health providers to work collaboratively to address children's needs. Closures of schools during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic left gaps in mental health support services to children and increased the burden on caregivers to ensure their children's well-being. In this study, investigators explored the feasibility and acceptability of a motivational interviewing-based program in which school-based mental health providers were trained to connect directly to caregivers to assist them in supporting key aspects of their children's well-being, including sleep, coping, and academic behavior. Results indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the program and a perception that it was helpful to caregivers and children. However, major challenges in recruitment of providers, as well as qualitative interviews with those providers who participated, indicated that the feasibility of implementing such a program is limited without significant additional implementation infrastructure. Findings suggest that structured support of caregivers, accessed through their children's schools, has high potential for improving child outcomes and family well-being. Future research should explore what implementation infrastructure is needed for schools to effectively offer these types of supports.

The Eating Disorders In weight-related Therapy (EDIT) Collaboration brings together data from randomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions to identify individual participant risk factors and intervention strategies that contribute to eating disorder risk. We present a protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis which aims to identify participants at risk of developing eating disorders, or related symptoms, during or after weight management interventions conducted in adolescents or adults with overweight or obesity. We systematically searched four databases up to March 2022 and clinical trials registries to May 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials of weight management interventions conducted in adolescents or adults with overweight or obesity that measured eating disorder risk at pre- and post-intervention or follow-up. Authors from eligible trials have been invited to share their deidentified IPD. Two IPD meta-analyses will be conducted. The first IPD meta-analysis aims to examine participant level factors associated with a change in eating disorder scores during and following a weight management intervention. To do this we will examine baseline variables that predict change in eating disorder risk within intervention arms. The second IPD meta-analysis aims to assess whether there are participant level factors that predict whether participation in an intervention is more or less likely than no intervention to lead to a change in eating disorder risk. To do this, we will examine if there are differences in predictors of eating disorder risk between intervention and no-treatment control arms. The primary outcome will be a standardised mean difference in global eating disorder score from baseline to immediately post-intervention and at 6- and 12- months follow-up. Identifying participant level risk factors predicting eating disorder risk will inform screening and monitoring protocols to allow early identification and intervention for those at risk.

This cross-sectional analysis of the Minnesota Now Everybody Together for Amazing Healthful Kids (NET-Works) study evaluated whether SNAP participation was associated with specific parental feeding styles and child eating behaviors. Associations between parent-reported feeding styles and child eating behaviors and SNAP participation were examined using multiple linear regression analyses and responses from 534 parent/child dyads (49.1% female children, 91.7% female parents). SNAP participation was not associated with specific feeding styles or child eating behaviors when adjusting for food insecurity, timing in SNAP cycle, and other covariates in this large, ethnically and racially diverse sample of predominantly mothers and preschool-aged children. Other factors, such as food insecurity, not SNAP participation, may influence parental feeding and child eating behaviors, and screening by health care providers is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The current study aimed to identify features to include in online grocery stores to support healthful food purchasing by those striving to lose weight.Design: A Value Proposition Design approach was used to gain shopper insights, devise potential online grocery store features and obtain feedback on these features.Setting: Telephone interviews were conducted to gain insight into shoppers' needs and perceptions. Results were used by the research team to identify potential online grocery shopping features that may support healthful purchase decisions, and interviews were conducted with a different sample of shoppers to gather feedback on features.Participants: Insight (n 25) and feedback (n 25) interviews were conducted with convenience samples of adults trying to lose weight.Results: Participants were primarily female, white, college educated and with obesity or overweight. Online grocery features devised by the research team based on findings from the insight interviews included (1) shopping cart nutrition rating tool; (2) healthy meal planning tool; (3) interactive healthy eating inspiration aisle and (4) healthy shopping preference settings option. Findings from the feedback interviews indicated that the healthy meal planning tool, healthy shopping preference settings option and shopping cart nutrition rating tool features were positively rated by most participants.Conclusions: There are multiple features grocers should consider including in their online stores to attract and support customers striving to eat healthy for weight loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: State-of-the-art behavioral weight loss treatment (SBT) can lead to clinically meaningful weight loss, but only 30-60% achieve this goal. Developing adaptive interventions that change based on individual progress could increase the number of people who benefit.Purpose: Conduct a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) to determine the optimal time to identify SBT suboptimal responders and whether it is better to switch to portion-controlled meals (PCM) or acceptance-based treatment (ABT).Method: The BestFIT trial enrolled 468 adults with obesity who started SBT and were randomized to treatment response assessment at Session 3 (Early TRA) or 7 (Late TRA). Suboptimal responders were re-randomized to PCM or ABT. Responders continued SBT. Primary outcomes were weight change at 6 and 18 months.Results: PCM participants lost more weight at 6 months (-18.4 lbs, 95% CI -20.5, -16.2) than ABT participants (-15.7 lbs, 95% CI: -18.0, -13.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (-2.7 lbs, 95% CI: -5.8, 0.5, p = .09). PCM and ABT participant 18 month weight loss did not differ. Early and Late TRA participants had similar weight losses (p = .96), however, Early TRA PCM participants lost more weight than Late TRA PCM participants (p = .03).Conclusions: Results suggest adaptive intervention sequences that warrant further research (e.g., identify suboptimal responders at Session 3, use PCMs as second-stage treatment). Utilizing the SMART methodology to develop an adaptive weight loss intervention that would outperform gold standard SBT in a randomized controlled trial is an important next step, but may require additional optimization work.Clinical Trial Information: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT02368002. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The study aims were to (1) document the relationship between a history of childhood abuse and weight change during behavioral obesity treatment and (2) estimate the indirect effect of childhood abuse on weight change through binge eating severity.Methods: Participants (n = 431) were enrolled in a behavioral weight-loss intervention. Childhood physical and emotional abuse history and current binge eating severity were self-reported. Percent weight loss at 6 months was calculated using measured weight. Adjusted mediation models examined whether there was an indirect effect of childhood physical and emotional abuse on 6-month percent weight loss that operated through binge eating severity.Results: After covariate adjustment, childhood physical abuse, but not emotional abuse, predicted a lower percent weight loss (B = -1.78%; 95% CI: -3.10% to -0.47%). Although childhood physical and emotional abuse were positively related to baseline binge eating severity, binge eating severity did not mediate the associations between either childhood abuse type and percent weight loss.Conclusions: Individuals with a childhood physical abuse history had a lower percent weight loss than those without such histories during behavioral obesity treatment. This effect was not explained by binge eating severity. Individuals with a history of childhood abuse may benefit from trauma-informed obesity care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is an emerging chronic illness potentially affecting millions of people. We aimed to evaluate whether outpatient COVID-19 treatment with metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of long COVID. We conducted a decentralised, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (COVID-OUT) at six sites in the USA. We included adults aged 30–85 years with overweight or obesity who had COVID-19 symptoms for fewer than 7 days and a documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR or antigen test within 3 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned via 2 × 3 parallel factorial randomisation (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive metformin plus ivermectin, metformin plus fluvoxamine, metformin plus placebo, ivermectin plus placebo, fluvoxamine plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo. Participants, investigators, care providers, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19 by day 14, and those data have been published previously. Because the trial was delivered remotely nationwide, the a priori primary sample was a modified intention-to-treat sample, meaning that participants who did not receive any dose of study treatment were excluded. Long COVID diagnosis by a medical provider was a prespecified, long-term secondary outcome. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04510194. Between Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 28, 2022, 6602 people were assessed for eligibility and 1431 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Of 1323 participants who received a dose of study treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 1126 consented for long-term follow-up and completed at least one survey after the assessment for long COVID at day 180 (564 received metformin and 562 received matched placebo; a subset of participants in the metformin vs placebo trial were also randomly assigned to receive ivermectin or fluvoxamine). 1074 (95%) of 1126 participants completed at least 9 months of follow-up. 632 (56·1%) of 1126 participants were female and 494 (43·9%) were male; 44 (7·0%) of 632 women were pregnant. The median age was 45 years (IQR 37–54) and median BMI was 29·8 kg/m2 (IQR 27·0–34·2). Overall, 93 (8·3%) of 1126 participants reported receipt of a long COVID diagnosis by day 300. The cumulative incidence of long COVID by day 300 was 6·3% (95% CI 4·2–8·2) in participants who received metformin and 10·4% (7·8–12·9) in those who received identical metformin placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·39–0·89; p=0·012). The metformin beneficial effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups. When metformin was started within 3 days of symptom onset, the HR was 0·37 (95% CI 0·15–0·95). There was no effect on cumulative incidence of long COVID with ivermectin (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·59–1·64) or fluvoxamine (1·36, 0·78–2·34) compared with placebo. Outpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4·1%, compared with placebo. Metformin has clinical benefits when used as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and is globally available, low-cost, and safe. Parsemus Foundation; Rainwater Charitable Foundation; Fast Grants; UnitedHealth Group Foundation; National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Few studies have investigated disordered eating and unhealthy weight control behaviors and cardiovascular health (CVH) outside of adolescence and early adulthood. We examined the cross-sectional and prospective associations of these behaviors and CVH in middle adulthood., Method: A total of 2,095 Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults participants were assessed at Year 10 (Y10, 1995-1996) and Year 30 (Y30, 2015-2016). The Y10-administered Questionnaire on Eating and Weight Patterns-Revised was used to create the problematic relationship to eating and food (PREF) score (range 0-8). Higher scores indicated greater disordered eating and/or unhealthy weight control behaviors across eight components. PREF was modeled categorically: 0-1 (reference), 2-3, and 4-8. Diet, physical activity, smoking, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and body mass index (BMI) were measured at Y10 and Y30 (diet at Y7 and Y20) and used to define CVH. CVH was modeled categorically: poor-to-intermediate (0-9) and ideal (10-14; reference). Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between PREF and CVH categories and components., Results: PREF 4-8 was associated with Y10 poor-to-intermediate CVH ( OR = 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.78, 3.10]) but not Y30 ( OR = 1.34, 95% CI [0.96, 1.87]) compared to PREF 0-1. PREF 2-3 was not associated with Y10 or Y30 CVH. Individual PREF components were not uniformly associated with individual CVH components, although all PREF components were associated with Y10 poor-to-intermediate BMI., Conclusions: Disordered eating and unhealthy weight control behaviors are cross-sectionally but not prospectively associated with poorer CVH during middle age. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Metformin has antiviral activity against RNA viruses including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The mechanism appears to be suppression of protein translation via targeting the host mechanistic target of rapamycin pathway. In the COVID-OUT randomized trial for outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), metformin reduced the odds of hospitalizations/death through 28 days by 58%, of emergency department visits/hospitalizations/death through 14 days by 42%, and of long COVID through 10 months by 42%., Methods: COVID-OUT was a 2 × 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that assessed metformin, fluvoxamine, and ivermectin; 999 participants self-collected anterior nasal swabs on day 1 (n = 945), day 5 (n = 871), and day 10 (n = 775). Viral load was quantified using reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction., Results: The mean SARS-CoV-2 viral load was reduced 3.6-fold with metformin relative to placebo (-0.56 log10 copies/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -.06; P = .027). Those who received metformin were less likely to have a detectable viral load than placebo at day 5 or day 10 (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, .55 to .94). Viral rebound, defined as a higher viral load at day 10 than day 5, was less frequent with metformin (3.28%) than placebo (5.95%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, .36 to 1.29). The metformin effect was consistent across subgroups and increased over time. Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed effect over placebo., Conclusions: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial of outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2, metformin significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral load, which may explain the clinical benefits in this trial. Metformin is pleiotropic with other actions that are relevant to COVID-19 pathophysiology., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04510194., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. B. B. reports contracted fees and travel support for contracted activities for consulting work paid to the University of North Carolina by Novo Nordisk; grant support by NIH, PCORI, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Carmot, Corcept, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Insulet, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, and vTv Therapeutics; personal compensation for consultation from Alkahest, Altimmune, Anji, Aqua Medical Inc, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CeQur, Corcept Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, embecta, GentiBio, Glyscend, Insulet, Mellitus Health, Metsera, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, Pendulum Therapeutics, Praetego, Stability Health, Tandem, Terns Inc, and Vertex.; personal compensation for expert testimony from Medtronic MiniMed; participation on advisory boards for Altimmune, AstraZeneca, and Insulet; a leadership role for the Association of Clinical and Translational Science; and stock/options in Glyscend, Mellitus Health, Pendulum Therapeutics, Praetego, and Stability Health. M. A. P. receives consulting fees from Opticyte and Cytovale. A. B. K. has served as an external consultant for Roche Diagnostics; received speaker honoraria from Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, the American Kidney Fund, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Society of Nephrology, and Yale University Department of Laboratory Medicine; research support unrelated to this work from Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and the NIH; support for travel from College of American Pathologists Point-Of-Care Testing Committee; participation on an advisory board for the Minnesota Newborn Screening Advisory Committee; grants from NIH and JDRF for multiple unrelated clinical research projects and Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development and Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics for unrelated clinical research studies; and leadership roles for the American Board of Clinical Chemistry, Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Subcommittee, and ADLM Academy Test Utilization Committee. M. R. R. reports consulting fees from 20/20 Gene Systems for coronavirus disease 2019 testing. D. B. R. reports grants from the NIH NCATS ACTIV-6 Steering Committee Chair. K. C. reports stock or stock options for United Health Group. C. T. B. reports consulting fees from NCATS/DCRI and the ACTIV-6 Executive Committee and support for travel from Academic Medical Education. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination has decreasing protection from acquiring any infection with emergence of new variants; however, vaccination continues to protect against progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The impact of vaccination status on symptoms over time is less clear., Methods: Within a randomized trial on early outpatient COVID-19 therapy testing metformin, ivermectin, and/or fluvoxamine, participants recorded symptoms daily for 14 days. Participants were given a paper symptom diary allowing them to circle the severity of 14 symptoms as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3). This is a secondary analysis of clinical trial data on symptom severity over time using generalized estimating equations comparing those unvaccinated, SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated with primary vaccine series only, or vaccine-boosted., Results: The parent clinical trial prospectively enrolled 1323 participants, of whom 1062 (80%) prospectively recorded some daily symptom data. Of these, 480 (45%) were unvaccinated, 530 (50%) were vaccinated with primary series only, and 52 (5%) vaccine-boosted. Overall symptom severity was least for the vaccine-boosted group and most severe for unvaccinated at baseline and over the 14 days (P < .001). Individual symptoms were least severe in the vaccine-boosted group including cough, chills, fever, nausea, fatigue, myalgia, headache, and diarrhea, as well as smell and taste abnormalities. Results were consistent over Delta and Omicron variant time periods., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-boosted participants had the least severe symptoms during COVID-19, which abated the quickest over time. Clinical Trial Registration. NCT04510194., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)