-
1.
Individual risk management strategy and potential therapeutic options for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gasmi, A, Noor, S, Tippairote, T, Dadar, M, Menzel, A, Bjørklund, G
Clinical immunology (Orlando, Fla.). 2020;215:108409
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
With the continuing spread of COVID-19 and lack of any approved treatments, this paper examines possible strategies for prevention. The data emerging so far highlights that individual health status plays a critical role in determining clinical severity of COVID-19 symptoms ranging from asymptomatic, mild, moderate, to death. Metabolic status, as determined by a patient’s diet, nutrition, age, sex, medical conditions, lifestyle, and environmental factors can therefore be considered preventative strategies to improve the severity of COVID-19 outcomes. Social distancing and personal hygiene are stated as the most effective strategies to prevent or slow spread of the disease. However individual health status, age and the presence of pre-existing comorbidities influences outcomes, as shown by global data highlighting a prevalence in older, males with metabolic conditions; hypertension in 23.7% patients and diabetes in 16.2% of patients. Older males appear more prone to infectious diseases with high pro-inflammatory immune responses and low adaptive immune responses than an older woman. Diet and healthy intestinal and respiratory tract microbiota may also influence immune system competence. Numerous micronutrients are essential for immunocompetence, particularly vitamin A, C, D, E, Bs, iron, selenium, and zinc. A balanced diet, high in colourful fruits and vegetables with a variation of prebiotic fibres, probiotics, and plant polyphenols and phytonutrients, help promote a healthy, diverse microbiota. Oral probiotics may also be beneficial to vulnerable individuals. Vitamin D supplementation is also proving helpful in prevention of acute respiratory tract infections. Other lifestyle factors such as smoking and exposure to environmental toxins should also be considered. Together these preventative measures may reduce personal risk of getting the disease.
Abstract
It is an ugly fact that a significant amount of the world's population will contract SARS-CoV-II infection with the current spreading. While a specific treatment is not yet coming soon, individual risk assessment and management strategies are crucial. The individual preventive and protective measures drive the personal risk of getting the disease. Among the virus-contracted hosts, their different metabolic status, as determined by their diet, nutrition, age, sex, medical conditions, lifestyle, and environmental factors, govern the personal fate toward different clinical severity of COVID-19, from asymptomatic, mild, moderate, to death. The careful individual assessment for the possible dietary, nutritional, medical, lifestyle, and environmental risks, together with the proper relevant risk management strategies, is the sensible way to deal with the pandemic of SARS-CoV-II.
-
2.
Therapist-supported Internet cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in adults.
Olthuis, JV, Watt, MC, Bailey, K, Hayden, JA, Stewart, SH
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;3:CD011565
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Previous research has supported the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of anxiety disorders, which is aimed at changing negative or unhealthy thinking patterns. Many individuals with anxiety find it challenging to get to CBT appointments and so an internet-based programme, with telephone and email support, has been developed. This systematic review of 38 randomised controlled trial studies aimed to assess the effects of internet CBT (ICBT) on anxiety symptoms and severity. The results showed that there was a clinically important improvement in anxiety alongside reductions in symptom severity and an increase in the patient’s quality of life (QoL) when following ICBT compared to no treatment or online support group discussions. When comparing supported ICBT and self-guided CBT there were no differences between anxiety symptom severity and QoL. When comparing ICBT and face to face therapist-supported CBT, no differences were reported in anxiety symptoms and QoL. It was concluded that ICBT is more beneficial than no treatment or online discussion groups and may be just as useful as face-to-face CBT. The number of studies that compared ICBT to self-guided CBT was limited and so specific conclusions were difficult to ascertain. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that people suffering from anxiety may not be receiving the treatment they need for fears of new situations or leaving the house. In this instance ICBT is an alternative treatment that is just as beneficial as face-to-face therapy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders. Many people have difficulty accessing treatment, due to a variety of obstacles. Researchers have therefore explored the possibility of using the Internet to deliver CBT; it is important to ensure the decision to promote such treatment is grounded in high quality evidence. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of therapist-supported Internet CBT (ICBT) on remission of anxiety disorder diagnosis and reduction of anxiety symptoms in adults as compared to waiting list control, unguided CBT, or face-to-face CBT. Effects of treatment on quality of life and patient satisfaction with the intervention were also assessed. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 16 March 2015. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies. We contacted authors to locate additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Each identified study was independently assessed for inclusion by two authors. To be included, studies had to be randomised controlled trials of therapist-supported ICBT compared to a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group; unguided CBT (that is, self-help); or face-to-face CBT. We included studies that treated adults with an anxiety disorder (panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and specific phobia) defined according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III, III-R, IV, IV-TR or the International Classification of Disesases 9 or 10. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and judged overall study quality. We used data from intention-to-treat analyses wherever possible. We assessed treatment effect for the dichotomous outcome of clinically important improvement in anxiety using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For disorder-specific and general anxiety symptom measures and quality of life we assessed continuous scores using standardized mean differences (SMD). We examined statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS We screened 1736 citations and selected 38 studies (3214 participants) for inclusion. The studies examined social phobia (11 trials), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (8 trials), generalized anxiety disorder (5 trials), post-traumatic stress disorder (2 trials), obsessive compulsive disorder (2 trials), and specific phobia (2 trials). Eight remaining studies included a range of anxiety disorder diagnoses. Studies were conducted in Sweden (18 trials), Australia (14 trials), Switzerland (3 trials), the Netherlands (2 trials), and the USA (1 trial) and investigated a variety of ICBT protocols. Three primary comparisons were identified, therapist-supported ICBT versus waiting list control, therapist-supported versus unguided ICBT, and therapist-supported ICBT versus face-to-face CBT.Low quality evidence from 11 studies (866 participants) contributed to a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.75 (95% CI 2.51 to 5.60; I(2) = 50%) for clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment, favouring therapist-supported ICBT over a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only. The SMD for disorder-specific symptoms at post-treatment (28 studies, 2147 participants; SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.82; I(2) = 83%) and general anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (19 studies, 1496 participants; SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.52; I(2) = 78%) favoured therapist-supported ICBT; the quality of the evidence for both outcomes was low.One study compared unguided CBT to therapist-supported ICBT for clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment, showing no difference in outcome between treatments (54 participants; very low quality evidence). At post-treatment there were no clear differences between unguided CBT and therapist-supported ICBT for disorder-specific anxiety symptoms (5 studies, 312 participants; SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.13; I(2) = 58%; very low quality evidence) or general anxiety symptoms (2 studies, 138 participants; SMD 0.28, 95% CI -2.21 to 2.78; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence).Compared to face-to-face CBT, therapist-supported ICBT showed no significant differences in clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment (4 studies, 365 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.34; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between face-to-face and therapist supported ICBT for disorder-specific anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (7 studies, 450 participants; SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.37; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence) or general anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (5 studies, 317 participants; SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.69; I(2) = 78%; low quality evidence).Overall, risk of bias in included studies was low or unclear for most domains. However, due to the nature of psychosocial intervention trials, blinding of participants and personnel, and outcome assessment tended to have a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity across a number of the meta-analyses was substantial, some was explained by type of anxiety disorder or may be meta-analytic measurement artefact due to combining many assessment measures. Adverse events were rarely reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Therapist-supported ICBT appears to be an efficacious treatment for anxiety in adults. The evidence comparing therapist-supported ICBT to waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only control was low to moderate quality, the evidence comparing therapist-supported ICBT to unguided ICBT was very low quality, and comparisons of therapist-supported ICBT to face-to-face CBT were low quality. Further research is needed to better define and measure any potential harms resulting from treatment. These findings suggest that therapist-supported ICBT is more efficacious than a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only control, and that there may not be a significant difference in outcome between unguided CBT and therapist-supported ICBT; however, this latter finding must be interpreted with caution due to imprecision. The evidence suggests that therapist-supported ICBT may not be significantly different from face-to-face CBT in reducing anxiety. Future research should explore heterogeneity among studies which is reducing the quality of the evidence body, involve equivalence trials comparing ICBT and face-to-face CBT, examine the importance of the role of the therapist in ICBT, and include effectiveness trials of ICBT in real-world settings. A timely update to this review is needed given the fast pace of this area of research.
-
3.
Strategies to improve the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention policies, practices or programmes within childcare services.
Wolfenden, L, Jones, J, Williams, CM, Finch, M, Wyse, RJ, Kingsland, M, Tzelepis, F, Wiggers, J, Williams, AJ, Seward, K, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;10:CD011779
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Population-based approaches to childhood obesity prevention has identified centre-based childcare services as an effective platform for promoting healthy behaviours in children. While many studies have applied various strategies in this setting, a comprehensive review on programme and policy implementation is warranted. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of strategies to improve implementation of programmes by childcare services that promote healthy behaviours for children around diet, physical activity and obesity prevention. Based on the current literature, only 10 trials were identified and the findings were ambiguous. Most trials reported implementation support as beneficial for at least one practice or policy, however the impact was not significant. According to these findings, the authors highlight how little guidance is available for policy makers in this field and conclude that these practices in childcare services are only in the early stages of development.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the existence of effective interventions and best-practice guideline recommendations for childcare services to implement policies, practices and programmes to promote child healthy eating, physical activity and prevent unhealthy weight gain, many services fail to do so. OBJECTIVES The primary aim of the review was to examine the effectiveness of strategies aimed at improving the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. The secondary aims of the review were to:1. describe the impact of such strategies on childcare service staff knowledge, skills or attitudes;2. describe the cost or cost-effectiveness of such strategies;3. describe any adverse effects of such strategies on childcare services, service staff or children;4. examine the effect of such strategies on child diet, physical activity or weight status. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following electronic databases on 3 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and SCOPUS. We also searched reference lists of included trials, handsearched two international implementation science journals and searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA We included any study (randomised or non-randomised) with a parallel control group that compared any strategy to improve the implementation of a healthy eating, physical activity or obesity prevention policy, practice or programme by staff of centre-based childcare services to no intervention, 'usual' practice or an alternative strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The review authors independently screened abstracts and titles, extracted trial data and assessed risk of bias in pairs; we resolved discrepancies via consensus. Heterogeneity across studies precluded pooling of data and undertaking quantitative assessment via meta-analysis. However, we narratively synthesised the trial findings by describing the effect size of the primary outcome measure for policy or practice implementation (or the median of such measures where a single primary outcome was not stated). MAIN RESULTS We identified 10 trials as eligible and included them in the review. The trials sought to improve the implementation of policies and practices targeting healthy eating (two trials), physical activity (two trials) or both healthy eating and physical activity (six trials). Collectively the implementation strategies tested in the 10 trials included educational materials, educational meetings, audit and feedback, opinion leaders, small incentives or grants, educational outreach visits or academic detailing. A total of 1053 childcare services participated across all trials. Of the 10 trials, eight examined implementation strategies versus a usual practice control and two compared alternative implementation strategies. There was considerable study heterogeneity. We judged all studies as having high risk of bias for at least one domain.It is uncertain whether the strategies tested improved the implementation of policies, practices or programmes that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. No intervention improved the implementation of all policies and practices targeted by the implementation strategies relative to a comparison group. Of the eight trials that compared an implementation strategy to usual practice or a no intervention control, however, seven reported improvements in the implementation of at least one of the targeted policies or practices relative to control. For these trials the effect on the primary implementation outcome was as follows: among the three trials that reported score-based measures of implementation the scores ranged from 1 to 5.1; across four trials reporting the proportion of staff or services implementing a specific policy or practice this ranged from 0% to 9.5%; and in three trials reporting the time (per day or week) staff or services spent implementing a policy or practice this ranged from 4.3 minutes to 7.7 minutes. The review findings also indicate that is it uncertain whether such interventions improve childcare service staff knowledge or attitudes (two trials), child physical activity (two trials), child weight status (two trials) or child diet (one trial). None of the included trials reported on the cost or cost-effectiveness of the intervention. One trial assessed the adverse effects of a physical activity intervention and found no difference in rates of child injury between groups. For all review outcomes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low. The primary limitation of the review was the lack of conventional terminology in implementation science, which may have resulted in potentially relevant studies failing to be identified based on the search terms used in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current research provides weak and inconsistent evidence of the effectiveness of such strategies in improving the implementation of policies and practices, childcare service staff knowledge or attitudes, or child diet, physical activity or weight status. Further research in the field is required.
-
4.
The stigma of obesity in the general public and its implications for public health - a systematic review.
Sikorski, C, Luppa, M, Kaiser, M, Glaesmer, H, Schomerus, G, König, HH, Riedel-Heller, SG
BMC public health. 2011;11:661
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Obesity rates are still rising and, in addition to co-morbid diseases, perceived discrimination and stigmatisation leads to worse outcomes in obese individuals. The aim of this systematic review, including seven studies, was to investigate how the lay public perceive people with obesity or overweight (stigmatizing attitudes); (b) what they attribute obesity to (causal attribution) and (c) what types of interventions they support. Higher rates of stigmatising attitudes were associated with attributing obesity more to behaviour and less to heredity, lower levels of education and older age of the respondents, and not seeing obesity as an illness. Causal attributions varied slightly from study to study but most found that lack of activity behaviour, overeating and lack of willpower were the most prevalent causal attributions, with more than two thirds of respondents associating these factors to obesity, whilst only about a third agreed to heredity being an important factor. Environmental factors, in particular a bad food environment, was seen as a possible factor in obesity by about half of the respondents. In terms of prevention efforts, support was highest for childhood prevention and information campaigns, followed by banning junk foods in schools and banning junk food advertising, whilst taxation of unhealthy foods received the least support.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Up to this date, prevalence rates of obesity are still rising. Aside from co-morbid diseases, perceived discrimination and stigmatization leads to worsen outcomes in obese individuals. Higher stigmatizing attitudes towards obese individuals may also result in less support of preventive and interventive measures. In light of the immense burden of obesity on health care systems and also on the individuals' quality of life, accepted and subsidized preventive measures are needed. Policy support might be determined by views of the lay public on causes of obesity and resulting weight stigma. This study seeks to answer how representative samples of the lay public perceive people with obesity or overweight status (stigmatizing attitudes); what these samples attribute obesity to (causal attribution) and what types of interventions are supported by the lay public and which factors determine that support (prevention support). METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted. All studies of representative samples reporting results on (a) stigmatizing attitudes towards overweight and obese individuals, (b) causal beliefs and (c) prevention support were included. RESULTS Only 7 articles were found. One study reported prevalence rates of stigmatizing attitudes. About a quarter of the population in Germany displayed definite stigmatizing attitudes. Other studies reported causal attributions. While external influences on weight are considered as well, it seems that internal factors are rated to be of higher importance. Across the studies found, regulative prevention is supported by about half of the population, while childhood prevention has highest approval rates. Results on sociodemographic determinants differ substantially. CONCLUSIONS Further research on public attitudes toward and perception of overweight and obesity is urgently needed to depict the prevailing degree of stigmatization. Introducing a multidimensional concept of the etiology of obesity to the lay public might be a starting point in stigma reduction.
-
5.
The views of young children in the UK about obesity, body size, shape and weight: a systematic review.
Rees, R, Oliver, K, Woodman, J, Thomas, J
BMC public health. 2011;11:188
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Obesity in children is an increasing problem in Westernised societies; obese children are more at risk of poorer health in the short and long term. The aim of the study was to explore the views of children about the meanings of obesity and body size, shape or weight and their own experience of these issues. This systemic review looked at 28 studies done in UK, conducted after 1997 in children aged 4-11. The review’s findings suggest that for children, the health consequences of obesity seemed to be mostly irrelevant. Impact on their social lives was far more important. Also, despite often having healthy body sizes, children continue to dislike their own bodies. This review highlights the need to consider the social aspect of childhood obesity and that children’s perspectives should be used in the policy making process. The authors conclude that the studies did not fully represent children’s diversity and therefore higher quality research is needed to enable relevant interventions to be put into place.
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are high levels of concern about childhood obesity, with obese children being at higher risk of poorer health both in the short and longer terms. Children's attitudes to, and beliefs about, their bodies have also raised concern. Children themselves have a stake in this debate; their perspectives on this issue can inform the ways in which interventions aim to work.This systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research aimed to explore the views of UK children about the meanings of obesity and body size, shape or weight and their own experiences of these issues. METHODS We conducted sensitive searches of electronic databases and specialist websites, and contacted experts. We included studies published from the start of 1997 which reported the perspectives of UK children aged 4-11 about obesity or body size, shape or weight, and which described key aspects of their methods. Included studies were coded and quality-assessed by two reviewers independently.Findings were synthesised in two analyses: i) an interpretive synthesis of findings from open-ended questions; and ii) an aggregative synthesis of findings from closed questions. We juxtaposed the findings from the two syntheses. The effect of excluding the lowest quality studies was explored. We also consulted young people to explore the credibility of a subset of findings. RESULTS We included 28 studies. Instead of a focus on health, children emphasised the social impact of body size, describing experiences and awareness of abuse and isolation for children with a greater weight. Body size was seen as under the individual's control and children attributed negative characteristics to overweight people. Children actively assessed their own size; many wished their bodies were different and some were anxious about their shape.Reviewers judged that children's engagement and participation in discussion had only rarely been supported in the included studies, and few study findings had depth or breadth. CONCLUSIONS Initiatives need to consider the social aspects of obesity, in particular unhelpful beliefs, attitudes and discriminatory behaviours around body size. Researchers and policy-makers should involve children actively and seek their views on appropriate forms of support around this issue.