Search

BackgroundPhysical inactivity and sedentary behavior are modifiable risk factors for an unhealthy lifestyle in university students. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups among German university students with an increased risk for unhealthy behavior. For this purpose, differences in physical activity and sedentary behavior with respect to sociodemographic and study related factors were examined.MethodsA total of 4,351 students participated in an online survey. The amount of physical activity (metabolic equivalent of task-min/week) and the sitting time (h/day) were assessed using the German short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Differences in gender and age as well as field of study, targeted degree and study semester were analyzed using a single factorial ANOVA with Tukey correction or a Welch-ANOVA with Games-Howell correction.ResultsFor physical activity, significant differences were found for gender (F(2, 80.46) = 17.79, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.009), for field of study (F(5, 1738.09) = 7.41, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.01), and for study semester (F(1, 948.12) = 5.53, p < 0.05, ηp2 =0.001), but not for age and targeted degree (p > 0.05). For sedentary behavior, significant differences were found for field of study (F(5, 3816) = 5.69, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.01) and targeted degree (F(3, 3868) = 3.94, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.003), but not for gender, age and study semester (p > 0.05).ConclusionFemale students, students enrolled in “natural sciences, mathematics and informatics” and first year students appear to have an increased risk of an unhealthy lifestyle. Future research should identify barriers to and incentives of physical activity as well as reasons for high amounts of SB in sub-populations of university students. Suitable prevention and intervention programs are necessary.

Vaccination hesitancy has been a major challenge for health authorities and societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The general determinants of vaccination intentions and behavior include sociodemographic and health-related, psychological, and communication-related factors, with varying relevance for different types of vaccinations, countries, and target groups. The predictors of university students’ COVID-19 vaccination behavior have not been sufficiently studied. Using a German university as an example and based on an online survey of 1398 university students, we investigated factors related to (a) the likelihood of vaccination against COVID-19 and (b) vaccination intention among those who had not been vaccinated by summer of 2021. Psychological factors showed high relevance. Field of study, trust in, and use of certain media and information channels were found to be important determinants of students’ vaccination decision. Our findings can help better understand university students’ vaccination behavior to develop and implement tailored strategies and campaigns.

BackgroundAccording to the literature, the conditions of studying and living as well as the psychological, social and health behavior-related variables, which were strongly related to pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) before the pandemic, significantly changed during the pandemic. For this reason, it is expected that the prevalence of PN among university students is higher during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate and compare the prevalence of PN among university students before and during the COVID-19-pandemic.MethodsThree online surveys assessing the 12-month prevalence of PN were conducted among university students at the University of Mainz, Germany. The first survey took place in summer term 2019 (before the pandemic), the second in summer term 2020 (during the first German lockdown), and the third in summer term 2021 (after the second German lockdown). Pearson's chi-square test was used to test whether the 12-month prevalence of PN differed significantly between the three surveys.ResultsThe 12-month prevalence of PN was 10.4% in 2019, 11.3% in 2020, and 8.0% in 2021. Chi-square tests revealed no statistical difference in the prevalence of PN between 2019 and 2020. Overall, the use of PN was lower in 2021 compared to 2019 (p < 0.0001) as well as in comparison to 2020 (p = 0.001). Only the use of cannabis slightly increased from 2019 to 2020 (7.1 vs. 8.3%) and decreased in 2021 (5.4%). At all three time points, cannabis was the most commonly used substance for the purpose of PN. Consequently, the results suggest that the prevalence of PN was highly intertwined with the prevalence of cannabis use for PN.DiscussionThe decrease in the prevalence of PN of around three percentage points in 2021 compared to the previous years was a surprising finding. It may be mainly due to the decrease in the prevalence of cannabis for the purpose of PN. However, the fairly high prevalence of PN of around 8% in 2021 is still an important finding that demonstrates that there is still an urgent need for prevention initiatives among university students to combat the use of PN.

Aiming to develop and implement intervention strategies targeting pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) among university students more specifically, we (1) assessed the prevalence of PN among German university students, (2) identified potential sociodemographic and study-related risk groups, and (3) investigated sociodemographic, psychological, study-related psychosocial, general psychosocial and health behavior related factors predicting the 12-month prevalence of PN. Therefore, a cross-sectional online survey was administered to students of the University of Mainz, Germany. A binary logistic regression with stepwise inclusion of the five variable groups was performed to predict PN. A total number of 4351 students out of 31,213 registered students (13.9%) participated in the survey, of whichN = 3984 answered the question concerning PN. Of these, 10.4% had used one substance for PN at least once in the past 12 months. The regression analysis revealed 13 variables that were significantly related to the 12-month prevalence of PN. Specifically, the group of health behavior related variables showed the strongest relationship with PN. Therefore, an approach to the prevention of PN should be multifactorial so that it addresses social conditions, as well as education on substance use and healthy behaviors in terms of non-pharmacological strategies as alternatives of PN.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a shutdown of universities in Germany. In a longitudinal design, we compared mental health (depression, anxiety, somatic complaints) of university students in Germany before (June to August 2019) and in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020) and determined the impact of pandemic-related stress and loneliness on students’ mental health in self-report online surveys. We investigated 443 participants (mean age 22.8 years), among them 77% female, and 10.4% medical students. A small increase of depression mean scores was observed (F(1,420) = 5.21; p = .023), anxiety and somatic complaints have not significantly changed. There was a medium increase in loneliness from pre-pandemic scores to the pandemic situation (F(1,423) = 30.56; p

Background: Universities represent an important setting of everyday life for health promotion. The Healthy Campus Mainz project aims to develop an evidence-based and comprehensive student health management program covering physical, mental, and social health promotion. Hence, an initial health survey was performed in order to identify the students' health concerns and resources. Up until now, it remains unclear which topics to choose in a health survey among university students and which strategies can be recommended to receive an acceptable response rate or representative student sample within a university setting. The present paper contributes to the call for the present research topic “Public Health Promotion in University Students” by describing methods for health assessment. Therefore, the current paper aims to give an empirical example on how to perform a health survey among university students, focusing on (1) choosing topics for the survey and (2) methodological considerations of how to reach the target population.Methods: An online questionnaire including around 270 items was developed covering a comprehensive set of health topics. Participants were recruited via the university email. Mixed channels for survey promotion, such as lecture visits and social media, were used, accompanied by different monetary and non-monetary incentives. Descriptive analyses were performed to describe the sample.Results: A total of 5,006 participants (out of 31,213 registered students) viewed the first page of the questionnaire; of whom, 4,714 continued further. After a manual data cleaning according to the predefined criteria, the final sample was 4,351, demonstrating a response rate of 13.9%. Students from different study disciplines participated. However, some study disciplines showed a low participation rate, hence, making the results not free from some bias.Discussion: This survey is exceptional as it integrates a great variety of health aspects. The incentive strategy demonstrated promising results. Future research should try to improve target-group-specific recruitment strategies for the traditionally underrepresented groups, such as males and specific study disciplines. This would not only include advancing marketing strategies, but also refining the incentive strategy.

Background: Universities represent an important setting of everyday life for health promotion. The aim of the present study was to assess whether university students of specific disciplines might have an increased risk for having a study-related work accident and to analyze what types of study-related work accidents occur most frequently. Furthermore, knowledge regarding study-related commuting accidents will be provided by identifying places where study-related commuting accidents might occur most frequently and on potential types of commuting (walking vs. biking) which might be associated with an increased risk for having a study-related commuting accident. Methods: Retrospective analyses of a dataset provided by the Accident Insurance Fund of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, including all accidents that happened at the University of Mainz (JGU) between December 2012 and December 2018 were performed. Binominal tests were computed to reveal whether the frequency of study-related work accidents in students affiliated with a specific faculty or institution differs significantly from the expected frequency of all reported study-related work accidents. Results: Overall, 1285 study-related accidents were analyzed&mdash, of which, 71.8% were work and 28.2% commuting accidents. Students of &lsquo, Faculty&mdash, Medicine&rsquo, (80.5%, p = 0.003), &lsquo, Chemistry, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Geography and Geosciences&rsquo, (90.7%, p &lt, 0.001), and students that participated in study-related sports activities (97.4%, p &le, 0.001) had a significantly increased risk for the occurrence of a study-related work accident. Needlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs) as well as lab accidents play a pivotal role. Furthermore, above 40% of the study-related commuting accidents were cycling accidents. Conclusions: There is a call for prevention in order to decrease the number of NSIs among medical students, lab accidents as well as sport-related accidents. Concrete implications for prevention are discussed in the present paper. In addition, given that students are among the most likely to bicycle, and given that most bicycle-related accidents involve fatal injuries, cycling safety campaigns need to be initiated on campus.

Background: Universities represent an important setting for health promotion. The unique collective of university students is of particular relevance since they are the leaders, decision-makers, and parents of tomorrow. In this context, modifiable health influencing factors as well as interventions to prevent these, play a crucial role. Therefore, the present umbrella review aims to (i) provide an overview of review articles addressing epidemiological issues (prevalence and determinants) of modifiable health influencing factors in university students and (ii) to provide an overview of review articles addressing the evidence of interventions to promote/enhance modifiable health influencing factors in university students. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, Cochrane Reviews Library und Web of Science according to the PRISMA guidelines. Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR-2-Tool was used for the quality assessment. Result: The initial search resulted in 10,726 records of which 81 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a further distinction in articles with an epidemiological focus (n = 39) and in articles with interventional approaches (n = 42). Topics of the different review articles ranged from physical activity over mental health, substance use, sleep, diet and nutrition, and media consumption. Many review articles had a specific focus on medical and nursing students and originated from the U.S.A., U.K., or China. Discussion: This umbrella review provides an overview of review articles on the epidemiology of modifiable health influencing factors and on the evidence of interventions targeting these factors among university students. Thereby, experts as well as stakeholders in the field could gain insights into crucial target points for health promotion. It identifies research gaps in terms of study region and groups of students.

The immunosuppressive medications used in organ transplant recipients (OTRs) to prevent allograft rejection are associated with an increased incidence of skin cancer in this population. Several classes of immunosuppressive agents exist, and the selection of which medication to use varies by organ type and with time. The tumorigenic potential and relative effects of different immunosuppressive medications on skin cancer risk have been studied. This article reviewed the history of the immunosuppressive agents and their mechanisms of action. A summary of the current literature on the relationship between skin cancer and the different immunosuppressives were included. Guidelines for management of OTRs in dermatologic practice were discussed.

Objectives To assess how the surgical skills of residents are taught and evaluated within dermatology residency programs in the United States; to assess which surgical techniques training directors and residents consider important for residents to perform or at least understand by the end of residency training. Methods A 126-question survey was sent to all 106 of the US dermatology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Contact was initially made via e-mail. Surveys were addressed to the program director, surgical training director, and chief resident of each program. A follow-up survey was mailed to nonresponders. Results Ninety-five surveys were returned representing 71 (67%) of 106 programs. Eighty-nine percent of programs (n=63) reported having a formal curriculum in dermatologic surgery. Among programs represented, 97% (n=69) taught surgical skills in the procedure room, 84% (n=57) used pigs’ feet, and fewer than 10% (n=6) used human cadavers. Ninety-four percent of programs (n=61) scheduled surgical lectures; two thirds (n=41) formally assigned surgical reading, and over half (n=36) used Web-based lectures to teach skills. To assess training, most programs (86%; n=50) used subjective global evaluation at the end of a surgery rotation. Fewer than 30% (n=15) discussed specific objectives prior to the rotation. Only about 25% of programs (n=17) reported the use of written or oral examinations to assess resident surgery skills. Traditional biopsy and simple surgical procedures were reported as most important to know and perform. Interest by both faculty members and residents in more advanced surgical techniques was more limited and variable. Cosmetic surgery techniques were most likely to be viewed as unimportant. Conclusions Most dermatology programs teach surgical skills by traditional apprenticeship methods supplemented by work in pigs’ feet laboratory classes and regularly scheduled lectures. Skill assessment is mainly done through subjective means. Almost all respondents thought that basic biopsy and excisional skills were essential for residents to know and perform. More complex surgical techniques and the use of lasers were considered less important. Cosmetic techniques were those most frequently viewed as unimportant.

Importance Detailed information regarding perioperative risk and adverse events associated with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) can guide clinical management. Much of the data regarding complications of MMS are anecdotal or report findings from single centers or single events. Objectives To quantify adverse events associated with MMS and detect differences relevant to safety. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter prospective inception cohort study of 21 private and 2 institutional US ambulatory referral centers for MMS. Participants were a consecutive sample of patients presenting with MMS for 35 weeks at each center, with staggered start times. Exposure Mohs micrographic surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures Intraoperative and postoperative minor and serious adverse events. Results Among 20 821 MMS procedures, 149 adverse events (0.72%), including 4 serious events (0.02%), and no deaths were reported. Common adverse events reported were infections (61.1%), dehiscence and partial or full necrosis (20.1%), and bleeding and hematoma (15.4%). Most bleeding and wound-healing complications occurred in patients receiving anticoagulation therapy. Use of some antiseptics and antibiotics and sterile gloves during MMS were associated with modest reduction of risk for adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance Mohs micrographic surgery is safe, with a very low rate of adverse events, an exceedingly low rate of serious adverse events, and an undetectable mortality rate. Common complications include infections, followed by impaired wound healing and bleeding. Bleeding and wound-healing issues are often associated with preexisting anticoagulation therapy, which is nonetheless managed safely during MMS. We are not certain whether the small effects seen with the use of sterile gloves and antiseptics and antibiotics are clinically significant and whether wide-scale practice changes would be cost-effective given the small risk reductions.