Search

The article discusses the challenge of using freedom of information (FOI) legislation for health policy research. It discusses the use of FOI as a health policy research tool and identifies causes for concern about the use of FOI requests including strain on for public bodies handling FOI requests and preference of agencies for working through informal channels. It stresses the need to value the principles of transparency and democratic accountability to maintain an effective FOI regime.

Adaptations occur at many levels, for example, from DNA sequence of regulatory elements and cellular homeostatic systems to organismal physiology and behaviour (Mayr, 1997). Established adaptations are maintained by purifying and stabilizing selection. Students of animal diversity tend to focus on higher order traits, anatomy, physiology, organismal function and interactions. The core cellular and metabolic systems of metazoans evolved early in their history and are assumed to be rather similar between groups. The housekeeping functions and core metabolic functions of cells are generally considered relatively static, especially among closely related species. The extent to which evolution shapes core cellular metabolism and physiology in animals is largely unexplored. Ecological opportunities or strong positive selection can alter basal metabolic rate, activity levels and life‐history traits (e.g., life span, age of maturity, offspring number) and potentially lead to divergence in core cellular and metabolic trait systems (Norin & Metcalfe, 2019; Speakman, 2005). Furthermore, systems under stabilizing selection can also change. Developmental systems of related species may produce the same phenotype or structure, but experience drift that can alter connections and even lead to turnover of cogs in the system (True & Haag, 2001). Are the cellular functions of animals highly constrained, subject to cellular system drift or affected by positive selection? This was tackled by a new study by Kateryna Gaertner and colleagues in a From the Cover manuscript in this issue of Molecular Ecology (Gaertner et al., 2022), using fibroblasts from the closely related but ecologically distinct brown and mountain hares. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Research identifies that multinational corporations, including The Coca-Cola Company ('Coca-Cola'), seek to influence public health research and policy through scientific events, such as academic and professional conferences. This study aims to understand how different forms of funding and sponsorship impact the relationship between Coca-Cola, academic institutions, public health organisations, academics and researchers. Design: The study was conducted using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and systematic website searches. Setting: Data were collected by twenty-two FOI requests to institutions in the USA and UK, resulting in the disclosure of 11 488 pages, including emails and attachments relating to 239 events between 2009 and 2018. We used the Wayback Machine to review historical website data to evaluate evidence from 151 available official conference websites. Participants: N/A Results: Documents suggest that Coca-Cola provides direct financial support to institutions and organisations hosting events in exchange for benefits, including influence over proceedings. Coca-Cola also provided direct financial support to speakers and researchers, sometimes conditional on media interviews. Also, indirect financial support passed through Coca-Cola-financed non-profits. Often, such financial support was not readily identifiable, and third-party involvement further concealed Coca-Cola funding. Conclusion: Coca-Cola exerts direct influence on academic institutions and organisations that convene major public health conferences and events. These events offer Coca-Cola a vehicle for its messaging and amplifying viewpoints favourable to Coca-Cola's interests. Such corporate-sponsored events should be viewed as instruments of industry marketing. Stronger rules and safeguards are needed to prevent hidden industry influence, such as complete disclosure of all corporate contributions for public health conferences and their speakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delirium is costly for patients, carers, and healthcare systems. In addition, non‐pharmacological and pharmacological management of delirium is challenging. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been proposed and used as an anecdotal treatment of delirium in clinical practice. However, the efficacy and safety of this approach are not well understood. Objective: To synthesise and review the evidence relating to the safety and efficacy of ECT as a treatment for delirium. Methods: A systematic review was completed according to PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases. Studies were eligible for inclusion if modified ECT was used to treat delirium symptoms. ECT for delirium in people with neuroleptic malignant syndrome, catatonia, or confusional states associated with acute primary psychiatric conditions were excluded. All included records were first ranked using the hierarchy of evidence‐based medicine; quality was then assessed using the Joanna Briggs critical appraisal checklists. Pooled data across the cases identified were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of 1226 records screened, 10 studies met inclusion criteria: six case reports, three case series, and one quasi‐experimental study. The literature base was of mixed quality. A single quasi‐experimental study was assessed to be of 'fair' quality, the remainder of the case series and case reports were rated as 'poor' to 'fair' quality. A total of only 40 individual people with delirium who were treated with ECT were identified. In 33/40 cases, the aetiology of delirium was substance withdrawal. The number of ECT treatments administered ranged from 1 to 13. ECT was reported to positively contribute towards treatment of delirium in all cases, although objective measures of improvement were reported in only 6/13 patient cases from case reports and case series (46%). The singular quasi‐experimental study reported a statistically significant decrease in duration of delirium, time spent in physical restraint, and in benzodiazepine requirement when ECT was used as an adjunct in benzodiazepine withdrawal delirium. When adverse events were described these included mild confusion and memory deficits; all were reported as time limited and reversible. Considerable limitations in the quality of the evidence base were identified, including the risk of selection, publication and reporting bias. Much data reporting on safety and efficacy of ECT in delirium was missing. Conclusion: There is insufficient literature to support modified ECT as a clinical treatment for delirium. The few studies identified were generally of weak evidence lacking important data on safety and objective outcome measures, and not including populations with broad delirium aetiologies. Further research using more robust methodologies and broader populations (age, aetiology) of people with delirium treated with ECT is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]