Search

BackgroundCardiovascular Disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in developing countries. CVD risk stratification guides the health policy to make evidence-based decisions.AimTo provide current picture and future trend of CVD risk in the adult Iranian population.MethodsNationally representative datasets of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2016 STEPwise approach to non-communicable diseases risk factor surveillance (STEPS) studies were used to generate the 10-year and 30-year risks of CVD based on Framingham, Globorisk, and World Health Organization (WHO) risk estimation models. Trend of CVD risk was calculated from 2000 until 2016 and projected to 2030.ResultsIn 2016, based on Framingham model, 14.0% of the Iranian, aged 30 to 74, were at great risk (≥20%) of CVD in the next 10 years (8.0% among females, 20.7% among males). Among those aged 25 to 59, 12.7% had ≥45% risk of CVD in the coming 30 years (9.2% among females, 16.6 among males). In 2016, CVD risk was higher among urban area inhabitants. Age-standardized Framingham 10-year CVD risk will increase 32.2% and 19%, from 2000 to 2030, in females and males, respectively. Eastern provinces had the lowest and northern provinces had the greatest risk.ConclusionsThis study projected that CVD risk has increased from 2000 to 2016 in Iran. Without further risk factor modification, this trend will continue until 2030. We have identified populations at higher risks of CVD to guide future intervention.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in research culture and practice. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve the culture and practice of science. Together, we drafted 2 sets of recommendations for (1) ECRs directly involved in initiatives or activities to change research culture and practice; and (2) stakeholders who wish to support ECRs in these efforts. Importantly, these points apply to ECRs working to promote change on a systemic level, not only those improving aspects of their own work. In both sets of recommendations, we underline the importance of incentivizing and providing time and resources for systems-level science improvement activities, including ECRs in organizational decision-making processes, and working to dismantle structural barriers to participation for marginalized groups. We further highlight obstacles that ECRs face when working to promote reform, as well as proposed solutions and examples of current best practices. The abstract and recommendations for stakeholders are available in Dutch, German, Greek (abstract only), Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Serbian.

BackgroundFrequency of insulin pen use, despite its higher costs, is increasing to substitute the traditional use of insulin vials. This study aims to report insulin pen use frequency and its associated factors among participants of the STEPS survey 2016 in Iran, which was conducted based on the World Health Organization (WHO) STEPS methodology.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 19,503 (mean age of 46.03±0.13) out of 30,541 participants of the Iran STEPS survey were included (Inclusion criteria: aged >25 years old and availability of their demographic, clinical, and laboratory results for serum glucose, HbA1c, and lipid profile). Clinical and demographic characteristics, a frequency of use of each diabetes mellitus treatment type, and the association of insulin pen use with health outcomes are reported using descriptive analysis and propensity score modeling.ResultsThere were 1,999(10.85%) individuals diagnosed with diabetes in the population, while 1,160(56.87%) cases were taking antihyperglycemic treatments. In this subset, 240(21.14%) individuals administered insulin with or without using oral agents at the same time. 52.28% of participants who were under insulin therapy used insulin pens. None of the socioeconomic determinants, including gender (p-value = 0.11), type of residential areas (p-value = 0.52), years of schooling (p-value = 0.27), wealth index (p-value = 0.19), marital status (p-value = 0.37), and insurance types (p-value = 0.72) were significantly different among groups using insulin pens and insulin vials. Moreover, in the propensity score modeling, pen usage was not associated with a lower heart attack and ischemic stroke histories, systolic blood pressure, serum lipid profile, blood glucose, or HbA1c levels.ConclusionResults showed that the use of the higher-costing insulin pens compared to traditional vials and syringes is not associated with improved glycemic control and better lipid profile in our sample. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and to compare other aspects of insulin pen use, including adherence to treatment and cost-effectiveness.