Search

Purpose: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, home‐based and remote learning—particularly using electronic devices—was rapidly pushed out. Increased near‐work, screen time exposure and lack of outdoor time are risk factors that contribute to childhood myopia, but it is difficult to adopt recommendations from prior publications as a consistent limitation in the literature is the heterogeneity of research methodology. This review seeks to systematically evaluate how observational studies published during the pandemic have quantified and measured risk factors and myopia in school‐going children and adolescents. Methods: Three scientific databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) were systematically searched from March 2020 to April 2022. Findings from relevant studies were descriptively summarised in relation to the PICOS‐based objective of the review. Results: The final sample of 13 studies included research from six countries and comprised 1 411 908 children and adolescents. The majority of studies (N = 10; 76.9%) used spherical equivalent refraction (SER) of −0.5 dioptres or lower as a common definition of myopia. Most studies (77.8%) measuring screen time exposure found it higher during COVID‐19 compared to pre‐COVID, but only one study used objective measurement of screen time. The average critical appraisal score of the sample was only 66.1%, with a considerable number of studies failing to identify and adjust for potential confounders. Conclusion: Future studies should consider emergent objective and validated measures of risk factors, account for potential a priori confounders and covariates and ensure more representativeness in the sociodemographic makeup of their samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine the utility of the health belief model (HBM) and other socioeconomic factors in shaping cervical screening behaviors. Also, to provide recommendations on improving screening uptake. Methodology: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane/CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases for articles reporting on the factors associated with cervical screening using the HBM within the period from January of 2002 to January of 2023. Effect sizes for the various HBM constructs were pre‐determined using the log odds ratio (logOR) and expressed with their confidence intervals. All reporting was in line with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 21 studies were included in the final analysis comprised of 15,365 participants. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that perceived susceptibility (OR: 1.40, 95% CI, 1.03–1.89), perceived benefits (OR: 1.30; 95% CI, 1.13–1.50), and self‐efficacy (OR: 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05–1.17) were significantly associated with both the uptake of and intention to adopt preventive measures against cervical cancer. Conversely, women with higher perceptions of barriers were less likely to adopt any measure for cervical cancer screening or prevention (OR: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57–0.91). In terms of sociodemographic effectors, older age (OR: 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01–1.19), graduate/post‐graduate education (OR: 2.80; 95% CI, 1.46–5.37), higher knowledge of cervical cancer (OR: 2.21; 95% CI, 1.27–3.84), and being married (OR: 3.89; 95% CI, 1.38–10.92) were all associated with altering preventive behaviors and intentions toward cervical cancer. Conclusion: This review delineates the most important and effective cognitive components that should be targeted within interventions aiming to promote cervical cancer prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]