Search

This study provides an accurate economic characterization of the supply of edible mushrooms throughout Italy within the European context to fill the relevant research gap and highlight barriers and opportunities that are consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals. Italian companies operating in this field were identified and economically characterized using the Chamber of Commerce’s Register of Companies. A qualitative web content analysis was then conducted to extract information about the marketed products, mushroom species, and retail channels, as well as the adopted certifications. The obtained data were quantitatively analyzed through descriptive statistics and multiple correspondence analysis. The Italian market is concentrated in northern areas of the country, and the limited company size indicates fragmentation at the production level, which led to Italy not being competitive enough and, thus, heavily rely on imports. Production is limited to less than 10 species, and innovative mushroom-based products, such as burgers, have shown a limited presence on the market, although they are gaining market share online. The novelty of growing kits highlights the potential to use food production waste to create fungal substrates. Investments in training new mushroom growers and studying new formulations and new fungal species are needed; these investments could allow greater market differentiation and be a good opportunity to promote local economies and create new job opportunities, thus meeting the requirements for sustainable development.

Abstract Background Preventing psychotic disorders and effective treatment in first-episode psychosis are key priorities for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This review assessed the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of health and social care interventions for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis. Methods Electronic searches were conducted using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant published full economic evaluations published before August 2020. Full-text English-language studies reporting a full economic evaluation of a health or social care intervention aiming to reduce or prevent symptoms in people at risk of psychosis or experiencing first-episode psychosis were included. Screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were performed using pre-specified criteria and forms based on the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) handbook and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist for economic evaluations. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42018108226). Results were summarised qualitatively. Results Searching identified 1,628 citations (1,326 following the removal of duplications). After two stages of screening 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions were varied and included multidisciplinary care, antipsychotic medication, psychological therapy, and assertive outreach. Evidence was limited in the at-risk group with only four identified studies, though all interventions were found to be cost-effective with a high probability (> 80%). A more substantial evidence base was identified for first-episode psychosis (11 studies), with a focus on early intervention (7/11 studies) which again had positive conclusions though with greater uncertainty. Conclusions Study findings generally concluded interventions were cost-effective. The evidence for the population who are at-risk of psychosis was limited, and though there were more studies for the population with first-episode psychosis, limitations of the evidence base (including generalisability and heterogeneity across the methods used) affect the certainty of conclusions.

Objectives To establish a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities relevant to the health and social care needs of adults with lived experience of recent and/or historical sexual violence/abuse.Participants Adults (aged 18+ years) with lived experience of sexual violence/abuse (ie, ‘survivors’) were consulted for this PSP, alongside healthcare and social care professionals who support survivors across the public, voluntary, community, independent practice and social enterprise sectors.Methods In line with standard JLA PSP methodology, participants completed an initial online survey to propose research questions relevant to the health and social care needs of survivors. Research questions unanswered by current evidence were identified, and a second online survey was deployed to identify respondents’ priorities from this list. Questions prioritised through the second survey were presented at a consensus meeting with key stakeholders to agree the top 10 research priorities using a modified nominal group technique approach.Results 223 participants (54% survivors) provided 484 suggested questions. Seventy-five unique questions unanswered by research were identified and subsequently ranked by 343 participants (60% survivors). A consensus meeting with 31 stakeholders (42% survivors) examined the top-ranking priorities from the second survey and agreed the top 10 research priorities. These included research into forms of support and recovery outcomes valued by survivors, how to best support people of colour/black, Asian and minority ethnic and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) survivors, improving access to high-quality psychological therapies, reducing public misconceptions/stigma, the impact of involvement in the criminal justice system on well-being, and how physical and mental health services can become more ‘trauma informed’.Conclusions These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to better support adult survivors of sexual violence and abuse. Researchers and funders should prioritise further work in these priority areas identified by survivors and the professionals who support them.

Objectives: In a context of COVID-19 vaccine shortages, this study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of receiving one dose of Gam-COVID-Vac rAd26 followed by a second COVID-19 vaccine dose of either Gam-COVID-Vac rAd5, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BBIBP-CorV in a cohort of older adults. Study design: Single-centre, randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial. Methods: Adults aged ≥65 years who had received one dose of Gam-COVID-Vac rAd26 were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a second-dose COVID-19 vaccination of either Gam-COVID-Vac rAd5, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BBIBP-CorV. The primary outcome was the assessment of the humoral immune response to vaccination (i.e. antibody titres of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at 28 days after second-dose vaccination). In addition, neutralising antibody titres at day 28 for the three schedules were measured. Results: Of 85 participants who were enrolled in the study between 26 and July 30, 2021, 31 individuals were randomised to receive Gam-COVID-Vac rAd5, 27 to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 27 to BBIBP-CorV. The mean age of participants was 68.2 years (SD 2.9) and 49 (57.6%) were female. Participants who received Gam-COVID-Vac rAd5 and ChAdOx1 nCoV1-19 showed significantly increased anti-S titres at 28 days after second-dose vaccination, but this magnitude of difference was not observed for those who received BBIBP-CorV. The ratio between the geometric mean at day 28 and baseline within each group was 11.8 (6.98–19.89) among patients assigned to Gam-COVID-Vac rAd26/rAd5, 4.81 (2.14–10.81) for the rAd26/ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 1.53 (0.74–3.20) for the rAd26/BBIBP-CorV group. All of the schedules were shown to be safe. Conclusions: The findings in this study contribute to the scarce information published on the safety and immunogenicity of Gam-COVID-Vac heterologous regimens and will help the development of guidelines and vaccine programme management.