-
Sleep Medicine Aug 2024Sleep-disordered breathing promotes not only unfavorable craniofacial changes in untreated pediatric patients but also neurocognitive, metabolic, cardiovascular, and... (Review)
Review
Sleep-disordered breathing promotes not only unfavorable craniofacial changes in untreated pediatric patients but also neurocognitive, metabolic, cardiovascular, and even long-term social alterations. This systematic review evaluated whether children diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) have different intestinal microbiota constitutions from healthy children and was based on the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42022360074). A total of 1562 clinical studies published between 2019 and 2023 were selected from the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, of which five were included in the qualitative analysis, three being randomized and two prospective. The methodological quality was assessed (RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I) and all studies showed a negative effect of intervention. Sleep deprivation and intermittent hypoxia in children with OSAS seem to trigger a cascade of inflammatory pathways that exacerbate the tissue response to the release of reactive oxygen species and the generation of oxidative stress, leading to a reduction in oxygen supply to the intestinal mucosa and the integral destruction of the intestinal barrier. More evidence-based investigations are needed to optimize the identification of possible alterations in the gut microbiota of pediatric patients, given that its composition may be influenced by the patient's sleep quality and, consequently, by OSAS, showing quantitative and qualitative alterations compared to that found in healthy individuals.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Child
PubMed: 38878352
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2024.06.002 -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Jul 2024Loss of hand function causes severe limitations in activity in daily living. The hand-soft robot is one of the methods that has recently been growing to increase the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Loss of hand function causes severe limitations in activity in daily living. The hand-soft robot is one of the methods that has recently been growing to increase the patient's independence. The purpose of the present systematic review was to provide a classification, a comparison, and a design overview of mechanisms and the efficacy of the soft hand robots to help researchers approach this field.
METHODS
The literature research regarding such tools was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials. We included peer-reviewed studies that considered a soft robot glove as an assistive device to provide function. The two investigators screened the titles and abstracts, then independently reviewed the full-text articles. Disagreements about inclusion were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer.
RESULTS
A total of 15 articles were identified, describing 210 participants (23 healthy subjects). The tools were in three categories according to their actuation type (pneumatic system, cable-driven, another design). The most critical outcomes in studies included functional tasks (fourteen studies), grip strength (four studies), range of motion (ROM) (five studies), and user satisfaction (five studies).
DISCUSSION
Function and grip parameters are the most common critical parameters for tests of hand robots. Cable-driven transmission and soft pneumatic actuators are the most common choices for the actuation unit. Radder et al. study had the highest grade from other studies. That was the only RCT among studies.
CONCLUSION
Although few soft robotic gloves can be considered ready to reach the market, it seems these tools have the potential to be practical for people with a disability. But, we lack consistent evidence of comparing two or more soft robot gloves on the hand functions. Future research needs to assess the effect of soft robotic gloves on people with hand disorders with more populations.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Hand Strength; Hand; Self-Help Devices; Range of Motion, Articular; Activities of Daily Living; Equipment Design
PubMed: 38876658
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.02.025 -
BMJ Mental Health Jun 2024To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends.
METHODS
We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems.
RESULTS
We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Prevalence; Mental Disorders; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Anxiety; Mental Health; Depression
PubMed: 38876492
DOI: 10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018 -
European Journal of Sport Science Jun 2024To assess the evidence for the effect of strength and conditioning on physical qualities and aesthetic competence in dance populations, three electronic databases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To assess the evidence for the effect of strength and conditioning on physical qualities and aesthetic competence in dance populations, three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus) were searched (until September 2022) for studies that met the following criteria: (i) dancers aged >16 years; (ii) structured strength and conditioning intervention; and (iii) with physical qualities and aesthetic competence as outcome measures. Methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed through the systematic review tool "QualSyst". Meta-analyses of effect sizes (Hedges' g) with forest plots explored the effects of the strength and conditioning interventions. Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Meta-analysis indicated strength and conditioning significantly (p < 0.05) improved lower body power (g = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53-1.27), upper body strength (g = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.39-1.57), lower body strength (g = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.97-2.22), and flexibility (g = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.05-1.66). Strength and conditioning interventions were found to be effective at improving physical qualities in dancers, recommending their participation in additional sessions to enhance overall fitness and ultimately dance performance. It is recommended that future strength and conditioning intervention research should include sample size calculations, with participants recruited from a specific dance genre and skill level in order to evaluate how strength and conditioning influences dance performance.
Topics: Humans; Dancing; Muscle Strength; Resistance Training; Esthetics
PubMed: 38874993
DOI: 10.1002/ejsc.12111 -
Vaccine: X Aug 2024This study systematically reviewed the published literature from clinical trials on the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to multidose... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and immunogenicity of a single dose of human papillomavirus vaccine compared to multidose vaccination regimens or no vaccination: An updated systematic review of evidence from clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
This study systematically reviewed the published literature from clinical trials on the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to multidose schedules or no HPV vaccination.
METHODS
Four databases were searched for relevant articles published from Jan-1999 to Feb-2023. Articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion using pre-defined criteria. Relevant data were extracted from eligible articles and a descriptive quality assessment was performed for each study. A narrative data synthesis was conducted, examining HPV infection, other clinical outcomes and immunogenicity responses by dose schedule.
RESULTS
Fifteen articles reporting data from six studies (all in healthy young females) were included. One article was included from each of three studies that prospectively randomised participants to receive a single HPV vaccine dose versus one or more comparator schedule(s). The other 12 articles reported data from three studies that randomised participants to receive multidose HPV vaccine (or control vaccine) schedules; in those studies, some participants failed to complete their allocated schedule, and evaluations were conducted to compare participants who actually received one, two or three doses. Across all efficacy studies, the incidence or prevalence of HPV16/18 infection was very low among HPV-vaccinated participants, regardless of the number of doses received; with no evidence for a difference between dose groups. In immunogenicity studies, HPV16/18 antibody seropositivity rates were high among all HPV-vaccinated participants. Antibody levels were significantly lower with one dose compared to two or three doses, but levels with one dose were stable and sustained to 11 years post-vaccination.
CONCLUSIONS
Results from this review support recent World Health Organization recommendations allowing either one- or two-dose HPV vaccination in healthy young females. Longer-term efficacy and immunogenicity data from ongoing studies are awaited. Randomised trials of single-dose HPV-vaccination are urgently needed in other populations, e.g. boys, older females and people with HIV.
PubMed: 38873638
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100486 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young... (Review)
Review
REVIEW RATIONALE AND CONTEXT
Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young people's offending outcomes. Evidence on summer employment programmes shows promise on this but has not yet been synthesised. This report fills this evidence gap through a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering summer education and summer employment programmes as their contexts and mechanisms are often similar.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The objective is to provide evidence on the extent to which summer programmes impact the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people.
METHODS
The review employs mixed methods: we synthesise quantitative information estimating the impact of summer programme allocation/participation across the outcome domains through meta-analysis using the random-effects model; and we synthesise qualitative information relating to contexts, features, mechanisms and implementation issues through thematic synthesis. Literature searches were largely conducted in January 2023. Databases searched include: Scopus; PsychInfo; ERIC; the YFF-EGM; EEF's and TASO's toolkits; RAND's summer programmes evidence review; key academic journals; and Google Scholar. The review employed PICOSS eligibility criteria: the was disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people aged 10-25; were either summer education or employment programmes; a valid group that did not experience a summer programme was required; studies had to estimate the summer programme's impact on violence and offending, education, employment, socio-emotional and/or health ; eligible were experimental and quasi-experimental; eligible were high-income countries. Other eligibility criteria included publication in English, between 2012 and 2022. Process/qualitative evaluations associated with eligible impact studies or of UK-based interventions were also included; the latter given the interests of the sponsors. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. The search identified 68 eligible studies; with 41 eligible for meta-analysis. Forty-nine studies evaluated 36 summer education programmes, and 19 studies evaluated six summer employment programmes. The number of participants within these studies ranged from less than 100 to nearly 300,000. The PICOSS criteria affects the external applicability of the body of evidence - allowances made regarding study design to prioritise evidence on UK-based interventions limits our ability to assess impact for some interventions. The risk of bias assessment categorised approximately 75% of the impact evaluations as low quality, due to attrition, losses to follow up, interventions having low take-up rates, or where allocation might introduce selection bias. As such, intention-to-treat analyses are prioritised. The quality assessment rated 93% of qualitative studies as low quality often due to not employing rigorous qualitative methodologies. These results highlight the need to improve the evidence.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The quantitative synthesis examined impact estimates across 34 outcomes, through meta-analysis (22) or in narrative form (12). We summarise below the findings where meta-analysis was possible, along with the researchers' judgement of the security of the findings (high, moderate or low). This was based on the number and study-design quality of studies evaluating the outcome; the consistency of findings; the similarity in specific outcome measures used; and any other specific issues which might affect our confidence in the summary findings.Below we summarise the findings from the meta-analyses conducted to assess the impact of allocation to/participation in summer education and employment programmes (findings in relation to other outcomes are also discussed in the main body, but due to the low number of studies evaluating these, meta-analysis was not performed). We only cover the pooled results for the two programme types where there are not clear differences in findings between summer education and summer employment programmes, so as to avoid potentially attributing any impact to both summer programme types when this is not the case. We list the outcome measure, the average effect size type (i.e., whether a standardised mean difference (SMD) or log odds ratio), which programme type the finding is in relation to and then the average effect size along with its 95% confidence interval and the interpretation of the finding, that is, whether there appears to be a significant impact and in which direction (positive or negative, clarifying instances where a negative impact is beneficial). In some instances there may be a discrepancy between the 95% confidence interval and whether we determine there to be a significant impact, which will be due to the specifics of the process for constructing the effect sizes used in the meta-analysis. We then list the statistic and the -value from the homogeneity test as indications of the presence of heterogeneity. As the sample size used in the analysis are often small and the homogeneity test is known to be under-powered with small sample sizes, it may not detect statistically significant heterogeneity when it is in fact present. As such, a 90% confidence level threshold should generally be used when interpreting this with regard to the meta-analyses below. The presence of effect size heterogeneity affects the extent to which the average effects size is applicable to all interventions of that summer programme type. We also provide an assessment of the relative confidence we have in the generalisability of the overall finding (low, moderate or high) - some of the overall findings are based on a small sample of studies, the studies evaluating the outcome may be of low quality, there may be wide variation in findings among the studies evaluating the outcome, or there may be specific aspects of the impact estimates included or the effect sizes constructed that affect the generalisability of the headline finding. These issues are detailed in full in the main body of the review. -Engagement with/participation in/enjoyment of education (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.12 (+0.03, +0.20); positive impact; = 48.76%, = 0.10; moderate confidence.-Secondary education attendance (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.26 (+0.08, +0.44); positive impact; = N/A; = N/A; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.02 (-0.03, +0.07); no impact; = 69.98%; = 0.03; low confidence.-Passing tests (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: +0.41 (-0.13, +0.96); no impact; = 95.05%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.02 (+0.00, +0.04); positive impact; = 0.01%; = 0.33; low confidence.-Reading test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.01 (-0.04, +0.05); no impact; = 0.40%; = 0.48; high confidence.-English test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.07 (+0.00, +0.13); positive impact; = 27.17%; = 0.33; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.03 (-0.05, -0.01); negative impact; = 0.00%; = 0.76; low confidence.-Mathematics test scores (SMD):∘All summer programmes: +0.09 (-0.06, +0.25); no impact; = 94.53%; = 0.00; high confidence.∘Summer education programmes: +0.14 (-0.09, +0.36); no impact; = 94.15%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.00 (-0.04, +0.05); no impact; = 0.04%; = 0.92; moderate confidence.-Overall test scores (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.08, +0.05); no impact; = 32.39%; = 0.20; high confidence.-All test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.14 (+0.00, +0.27); positive impact; = 91.07%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.04, +0.01); no impact; = 0.06%; = 0.73; high confidence.-Negative behavioural outcomes (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: -1.55 (-3.14, +0.03); negative impact; = N/A; = N/A; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.07 (-0.33, +0.18); no impact; = 88.17%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.-Progression to HE (log OR):∘All summer programmes: +0.24 (-0.04, +0.52); no impact; = 97.37%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer education programmes: +0.32 (-0.12, +0.76); no impact; = 96.58%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.10 (-0.07, +0.26); no impact; = 76.61%; = 0.02; moderate confidence.-Complete HE (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: +0.38 (+0.15, +0.62); positive impact; = 52.52%; = 0.06; high confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.07 (-0.19, +0.33); no impact; = 70.54%; = 0.07; moderate confidence.-Entry to employment, short-term (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.19 (-0.45, +0.08); no impact; = 87.81%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Entry to employment, full period (log OR)∘Summer employment programmes: -0.15 (-0.35, +0.05); no impact; = 78.88%; = 0.00; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.05 (-0.15, +0.05); no impact; = 0.00%; = 0.76; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a drug-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.16 (-0.57, +0.89); no impact; = 65.97%; = 0.09; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a violence-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.03 (-0.02, +0.08); no impact; = 0.00%; = 0.22; moderate confidence.-Likelihood of having a property-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.09 (-0.17, +0.34); no impact; = 45.01%; = 0.18; low confidence.-Number of criminal justice outcomes, during programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.03, +0.00); no impact; = 2.17%; = 0.31; low confidence.-Number of criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.03, +0.00); no impact; = 23.57%; = 0.37; low confidence.-Number of drug-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.06, +0.06); no impact; = 55.19%; = 0.14; moderate confidence.-Number of violence-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.02 (-0.08, +0.03); no impact; = 44.48%; = 0.18; low confidence.-Number of property-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.02 (-0.10, +0.05); no impact; = 64.93%; = 0.09; low confidence. We re-express instances of significant impact by programme type where we have moderate or high confidence in the security of findings by translating this to a form used by one of the studies, to aid understanding of the findings. Allocation to a summer education programme results in approximately 60% of individuals moving from never reading for fun to doing so once or twice a month (engagement in/participation in/enjoyment of education), and an increase in the English Grade Point Average of 0.08. Participation in a summer education programme results in an increase in overall Grade Point Average of 0.14 and increases the likelihood of completing higher education by 1.5 times. Signs are positive for the effectiveness of summer education programmes in achieving some of the education outcomes considered (particularly on test scores (when pooled across types), completion of higher education and STEM-related higher education outcomes), but the evidence on which overall findings are based is often weak. Summer employment programmes appear to have a limited impact on employment outcomes, if anything, a negative impact on the likelihood of entering employment outside of employment related to the programme. The evidence base for impacts of summer employment programmes on young people's violence and offending type outcomes is currently limited - where impact is detected this largely results in substantial reductions in criminal justice outcomes, but the variation in findings across and within studies affects our ability to make any overarching assertions with confidence. In understanding the effectiveness of summer programmes, the order of outcomes also requires consideration - entries into education from a summer employment programme might be beneficial if this leads towards better quality employment in the future and a reduced propensity of criminal justice outcomes.
QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS
Various shared features among different summer education programmes emerged from the review, allowing us to cluster specific types of these interventions which then aided the structuring of the thematic synthesis. The three distinct clusters for summer education programmes were: catch-up programmes addressing attainment gaps, raising aspirations programmes inspiring young people to pursue the next stage of their education or career, and transition support programmes facilitating smooth transitions between educational levels. Depending on their aim, summer education programme tend to provide a combination of: additional instruction on core subjects (e.g., English, mathematics); academic classes including to enhance specialist subject knowledge (e.g., STEM-related); homework help; coaching and mentoring; arts and recreation electives; and social and enrichment activities. Summer employment programmes provide paid work placements or subsidised jobs typically in entry-level roles mostly in the third and public sectors, with some summer employment programmes also providing placements in the private sector. They usually include components of pre-work training and employability skills, coaching and mentoring. There are a number of mechanisms which act as facilitators or barriers to engagement in summer programmes. These include tailoring the summer programme to each young person and individualised attention; the presence of well-prepared staff who provide effective academic/workplace and socio-emotional support; incentives of a monetary (e.g., stipends and wages) or non-monetary (e.g., free transport and meals) nature; recruitment strategies, which are effective at identifying, targeting and engaging participants who can most benefit from the intervention; partnerships, with key actors who can help facilitate referrals and recruitment, such as schools, community action and workforce development agencies; format, including providing social activities and opportunities to support the formation of connections with peers; integration into the workplace, through pre-placement engagement, such as through orientation days, pre-work skills training, job fairs, and interactions with employers ahead of the beginning of the summer programme; and skill acquisition, such as improvements in social skills. In terms of the causal processes which lead from engagement in a summer programme to outcomes, these include: skill acquisition, including academic, social, emotional, and life skills; positive relationships with peers, including with older students as mentors in summer education programmes; personalised and positive relationships with staff; location, including accessibility and creating familiar environments; creating connections between the summer education programme and the students' learning at home to maintain continuity and reinforce learning; and providing purposeful and meaningful work through summer employment programmes (potentially facilitated through the provision of financial and/or non-financial incentives), which makes participants more likely to see the importance of education in achieving their life goals and this leads to raised aspirations. It is important to note that no single element of a summer programme can be identified as generating the causal process for impact, and impact results rather from a combination of elements. Finally, we investigated strengths and weaknesses in summer programmes at both the design and implementation stages. In summer education programmes, design strengths include interactive and alternative learning modes; iterative and progressive content building; incorporating confidence building activities; careful lesson planning; and teacher support which is tailored to each student. Design weaknesses include insufficient funding or poor funding governance (e.g., delays to funding); limited reach of the target population; and inadequate allocation of teacher and pupil groups (i.e., misalignment between the education stage of the pupils and the content taught by staff). Implementation strengths include clear programme delivery guidance and good governance; high quality academic instruction; mentoring support; and strong partnerships. Implementation weaknesses include insufficient planning and lead in time; recruitment challenges; and variability in teaching quality. In summer employment programmes, design strengths include use of employer orientation materials and supervisor handbooks; careful consideration of programme staff roles; a wide range of job opportunities; and building a network of engaged employers. Design weaknesses are uncertainty over funding and budget agreements; variation in delivery and quality of training between providers; challenges in recruitment of employers; and caseload size and management. Implementation strengths include effective job matching; supportive relationships with supervisors; pre-work training; and mitigating attrition (e.g., striving to increase take up of the intervention among the treatment group). Implementation weaknesses are insufficient monitors for the number of participants, and challenges around employer availability.
PubMed: 38873396
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1406 -
Frontiers in Global Women's Health 2024Work-life integration has been extensively researched in various contexts. Women dominate the nursing profession, but work-life integration is essential for men and...
BACKGROUND
Work-life integration has been extensively researched in various contexts. Women dominate the nursing profession, but work-life integration is essential for men and women since both are expected to focus equally on their families and careers. The nursing faculty perceives nurse educators' work environment as undervalued, lacking support, and limited time to grow and carry the heavy workload.
METHOD
A qualitative meta-synthesis of studies between 2013 and 2023 was conducted using ScienceDirect, EBSCO Host, Sage and Sabinet databases. Seven articles related to the research phenomenon were retrieved.
CONCLUSION
The resulting themes revolved around two central aspects: nurse educators' work and life integration. Nurse educators face various challenges with work-life integration and often view their failure as a personal rather than a societal issue. However, as much as achieving work-life integration is personal, there is a call for employers in academic environments to improve workplace policies, like better-paid maternity leave, affordable quality childcare, and social support. Furthermore, nurse educators' line managers should display warmth and encouragement about personal challenges affecting nurse educators.
PubMed: 38873168
DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2024.1287484 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2024Similar to addictive substances, addictive behaviours such as gambling and gaming are associated with maladaptive modulation of key brain areas and functional networks... (Review)
Review
Similar to addictive substances, addictive behaviours such as gambling and gaming are associated with maladaptive modulation of key brain areas and functional networks implicated in learning and memory. Therefore, this review sought to understand how different learning and memory processes relate to behavioural addictions and to unravel their underlying neural mechanisms. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched four databases - PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using the agreed-upon search string. Findings suggest altered executive function-dependent learning processes and enhanced habit learning in behavioural addiction. Whereas the relationship between working memory and behavioural addiction is influenced by addiction type, working memory aspect, and task nature. Additionally, long-term memory is incoherent in individuals with addictive behaviours. Consistently, neurophysiological evidence indicates alterations in brain areas and networks implicated in learning and memory processes in behavioural addictions. Overall, the present review argues that, like substance use disorders, alteration in learning and memory processes may underlie the development and maintenance of behavioural addictions.
PubMed: 38870547
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105747 -
Archives of Public Health = Archives... Jun 2024While a growing body of research has been demonstrating how exposure to social and built environments relate to various health outcomes, specific pathways generally...
CONTEXT
While a growing body of research has been demonstrating how exposure to social and built environments relate to various health outcomes, specific pathways generally remain poorly understood. But recent technological advancements have enabled new study designs through continuous monitoring using mobile sensors and repeated questionnaires. Such geographically explicit momentary assessments (GEMA) make it possible to link momentary subjective states, behaviors, and physiological parameters to momentary environmental conditions, and can help uncover the pathways linking place to health. Despite its potential, there is currently no review of GEMA studies detailing how location data is used to measure environmental exposure, and how this in turn is linked to momentary outcomes of interest. Moreover, a lack of standard reporting of such studies hampers comparability and reproducibility.
AIMS
The objectives of this research were twofold: 1) conduct a systematic review of GEMA studies that link momentary measurement with environmental data obtained from geolocation data, and 2) develop a STROBE extension guideline for GEMA studies.
METHOD
The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of a combination of repeated momentary measurements of a health state or behavior with GPS coordinate collection, and use of these location data to derive momentary environmental exposures. To develop the guideline, the variables extracted for the systematic review were compared to elements of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and CREMAS (CRedibility of Evidence from Multiple Analyses of the Same data) checklists, to provide a new guideline for GEMA studies. An international panel of experts participated in a consultation procedure to collectively develop the proposed checklist items. RESULTS AND DEVELOPED TOOLS: A total of 20 original GEMA studies were included in the review. Overall, several key pieces of information regarding the GEMA methods were either missing or reported heterogeneously. Our guideline provides a total of 27 categories (plus 4 subcategories), combining a total of 70 items. The 22 categories and 32 items from the original STROBE guideline have been integrated in our GEMA guideline. Eight categories and 6 items from the CREMAS guideline have been included to our guideline. We created one new category (namely "Consent") and added 32 new items specific to GEMA studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study offers a systematic review and a STROBE extension guideline for the reporting of GEMA studies. The latter will serve to standardize the reporting of GEMA studies, as well as facilitate the interpretation of results and their generalizability. In short, this work will help researchers and public health professionals to make the most of this method to advance our understanding of how environments influence health.
PubMed: 38867286
DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01310-8 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024Whilst pharmacological therapies remain the cornerstone of pain management in chronic pain, factors including the current opioid epidemic have led to non-pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Whilst pharmacological therapies remain the cornerstone of pain management in chronic pain, factors including the current opioid epidemic have led to non-pharmacological techniques becoming a more attractive proposition. We explored the prevalence of medical device use and their treatment efficacy in non-cancer pain management. A systematic methodology was developed, peer reviewed and published in PROSPERO (CRD42021235384). Key words of medical device, pain management devices, chronic pain, lower back pain, back pain, leg pain and chronic pelvic pain using Science direct, PubMed, Web of Science, PROSPERO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PorQuest and ClinicalTrials.gov. All clinical trials, epidemiology and mixed methods studies that reported the use of medical devices for non-cancer chronic pain management published between the 1st of January 1990 and the 30th of April 2022 were included. 13 studies were included in systematic review, of these 6 were used in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis for pain reduction showed that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation combined with instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization treatment and pulsed electromagnetic therapy produced significant treatment on chronic lower back pain patients. Pooled evidence revealed the use of medical device related interventions resulted in 0.7 degree of pain reduction under a 0-10 scale. Significant improvement in disability scores, with a 7.44 degree reduction in disability level compared to a placebo using a 50 score range was also seen. Our analysis has shown that the optimal use of medical devices in a sustainable manner requires further research, needing larger cohort studies, greater gender parity, in a more diverse range of geographical locations.
Topics: Humans; Chronic Pain; Pain Management; Bayes Theorem; Low Back Pain; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Equipment and Supplies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38866854
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63499-6