Search

BackgroundGlobal efforts are needed to elucidate the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the underlying cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including seroprevalence, risk factors, and long-term sequelae, as well as immune responses after vaccination across populations and the social dimensions of prevention and treatment strategies.MethodsIn the United States, the National Cancer Institute in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, established the SARS-CoV-2 Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) as the nation's largest coordinated effort to study coronavirus disease 2019. The network comprises multidisciplinary researchers bridging gaps and fostering collaborations among immunologists, epidemiologists, virologists, clinicians and clinical laboratories, social and behavioral scientists, policymakers, data scientists, and community members. In total, 49 institutions form the SeroNet consortium to study individuals with cancer, autoimmune disease, inflammatory bowel diseases, cardiovascular diseases, human immunodeficiency virus, transplant recipients, as well as otherwise healthy pregnant women, children, college students, and high-risk occupational workers (including healthcare workers and first responders).ResultsSeveral studies focus on underrepresented populations, including ethnic minorities and rural communities. To support integrative data analyses across SeroNet studies, efforts are underway to define common data elements for standardized serology measurements, cellular and molecular assays, self-reported data, treatment, and clinical outcomes.ConclusionsIn this paper, we discuss the overarching framework for SeroNet epidemiology studies, critical research questions under investigation, and data accessibility for the worldwide scientific community. Lessons learned will help inform preparedness and responsiveness to future emerging diseases.

BackgroundInsufficient physical activity in the adult population is a global pandemic. Fun for Wellness (FFW) is a self-efficacy theory- and Web-based behavioral intervention developed to promote growth in well-being and physical activity by providing capability-enhancing opportunities to participants. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of FFW to increase physical activity in adults with obesity in the United States in a relatively uncontrolled setting. MethodsThis was a large-scale, prospective, double-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Participants were recruited through an online panel recruitment company. Adults with overweight were also eligible to participate, consistent with many physical activity–promoting interventions for adults with obesity. Also consistent with much of the relevant literature the intended population as simply adults with obesity. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (ie, FFW) or the usual care (ie, UC) group via software code that was written to accomplish equal allocations to the FFW and UC groups. Data collection was Web based, fully automated, and occurred at three time points: baseline, 30 days after baseline (T2), and 60 days after baseline (T3). Participants (N=461) who were assigned to the FFW group (nFFW=219) were provided with 30 days of 24-hour access to the Web-based intervention. A path model was fit to the data consistent with the FFW conceptual model for the promotion of physical activity. ResultsThere was evidence for a positive direct effect of FFW on transport-related physical activity self-efficacy (beta=.22, P=.02; d=0.23), domestic-related physical activity self-efficacy (beta=.22, P=.03; d=0.22), and self-efficacy to regulate physical activity (beta=.16, P=.01; d=0.25) at T2. Furthermore, there was evidence for a positive indirect effect of FFW on physical activity at T3 through self-efficacy to regulate physical activity at T2 (beta=.42, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.14). Finally, there was evidence for a null direct effect of FFW on physical activity (beta=1.04, P=.47; d=0.07) at T3. ConclusionsThis study provides some initial evidence for both the effectiveness (eg, a positive indirect effect of FFW on physical activity through self-efficacy to regulate physical activity) and the ineffectiveness (eg, a null direct effect of FFW on physical activity) of the FFW Web-based behavioral intervention to increase physical activity in adults with obesity in the United States. More broadly, FFW is a scalable Web-based behavioral intervention that may effectively, although indirectly, promote physical activity in adults with obesity and therefore may be useful in responding to the global pandemic of insufficient physical activity in this at-risk population. Self-efficacy to regulate physical activity appears to be a mechanism by which FFW may indirectly promote physical activity in adults with obesity. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03194854; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03194854.

Background: The purported benefits of online physical activity interventions, in terms of reduced costs, high reach, and easy access, may not be fully realized if participants do not engage with the programs. However, there is a lack of research on modifiable predictors (e.g., beliefs) of engagement with online physical activity interventions. The objective of this brief report was to investigate if self-efficacy to engage at baseline predicted subsequent engagement behavior in an online physical activity intervention at post-baseline., Methods: Data ( N  = 331) from the 2018 Fun For Wellness effectiveness trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03194854) were analyzed in this brief report. Multiple logistic regression was fit in M plus 8 using maximum-likelihood estimation., Results: There was evidence that self-efficacy to engage beliefs at baseline positively predicted subsequent engagement behavior in the Fun For Wellness intervention at 30 days post-baseline., Conclusions: Some recommendations to increase self-efficacy to engage in future online physical activity intervention studies were provided consistent with self-efficacy theory., 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., (© 2024 Lee, Myers, Bateman, Prilleltensky, McMahon and Brincks.)