Community Supported Agriculture, Human Capital, and Community Health.

Community supported agriculture (CSA) strengthens the local food system (LFS) and plays a critical role in promoting human capital (HC) and addressing social determinants of health (SDH). Most CSAs develop relationships that build a sense of community, and engage in activities that facilitate access to food and economic opportunities. CSAs may also contribute to personal development, education and income, working experience, and knowledge. CSA principles align with the principles of HC, specifically the pursuit of economic development. While research on the connection between CSA and HC has broadly focused on the economic aspect, the human development dimension has remained at the conceptual level. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential HC contributions by CSA and the implications for health outcomes in central/northern New Mexico. Primary and secondary data were collected through a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire and an internet search. Purposive sampling was used to select 13 CSAs. Eight (61.5%) responded and reported activities that address HC and SDH such as training, job creation, education, access to healthy food, food security, health education and disease management, social connections, and food justice. Given the potential impact, public health must contribute to CSA by generating evidence on its health and social benefits, training practitioners on supporting local food program, and promoting policy that stimulates the local economy, fosters social relations and food justice, and empowers community members. This study calls for research and practice to take a multilevel perspective on the contribution of LFSs to equity and wellbeing.

Probiotic capsules and xylitol chewing gum to manage symptoms of pharyngitis: a randomized controlled factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections is needed to limit the global threat of antibiotic resistance. We estimated the effectiveness of probiotics and xylitol for the management of pharyngitis. METHODS: In this parallel-group factorial randomized controlled trial, participants in primary care (aged 3 years or older) with pharyngitis underwent randomization by nurses who provided sequential intervention packs. Pack contents for 3 kinds of material and advice were previously determined by computer-generated random numbers: no chewing gum, xylitol-based chewing gum (15% xylitol; 5 pieces daily) and sorbitol gum (5 pieces daily). Half of each group were also randomly assigned to receive either probiotic capsules (containing 24 × 109 colony-forming units of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria) or placebo. The primary outcome was mean self-reported severity of sore throat and difficulty swallowing (scale 0-6) in the first 3 days. We used multiple imputation to avoid the assumption that data were missing completely at random. RESULTS: A total of 1009 individuals consented, 934 completed the baseline assessment, and 689 provided complete data for the primary outcome. Probiotics were not effective in reducing the severity of symptoms: mean severity scores 2.75 with no probiotic and 2.78 with probiotic (adjusted difference -0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.24 to 0.24). Chewing gum was also ineffective: mean severity scores 2.73 without gum, 2.72 with sorbitol gum (adjusted difference 0.07, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.37) and 2.73 with xylitol gum (adjusted difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.30). None of the secondary outcomes differed significantly between groups, and no harms were reported. INTERPRETATION: Neither probiotics nor advice to chew xylitol-based chewing gum was effective for managing pharyngitis. Trial registration: ISRCTN, no. ISRCTN51472596.

Effectiveness of steam inhalation and nasal irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews support nasal saline irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms, but trials have been small and few in primary care settings. Steam inhalation has also been proposed, but supporting evidence is lacking. We investigated whether brief pragmatic interventions to encourage use of nasal irrigation or steam inhalation would be effective in relieving sinus symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving adults (age 18-65 yr) from 72 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who had a history of chronic or recurrent sinusitis and reported a "moderate to severe" impact of sinus symptoms on their quality of life. Participants were recruited between Feb. 11, 2009, and June 30, 2014, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 advice strategies: usual care, daily nasal saline irrigation supported by a demonstration video, daily steam inhalation, or combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome measure was the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI). Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months. We imputed missing data using multiple imputation methods. RESULTS: Of the 961 patients who consented, 871 returned baseline questionnaires (210 usual care, 219 nasal irrigation, 232 steam inhalation and 210 combined treatment). A total of 671 (77.0%) of the 871 participants reported RSDI scores at 3 months. Patients' RSDI scores improved more with nasal irrigation than without nasal irrigation by 3 months (crude change -7.42 v. -5.23; estimated adjusted mean difference between groups -2.51, 95% confidence interval -4.65 to -0.37). By 6 months, significantly more patients maintained a 10-point clinically important improvement in the RSDI score with nasal irrigation (44.1% v. 36.6%); fewer used over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) or intended to consult a doctor in future episodes. Steam inhalation reduced headache but had no significant effect on other outcomes. The proportion of participants who had adverse effects was the same in both intervention groups. INTERPRETATION: Advice to use steam inhalation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care was not effective. A similar strategy to use nasal irrigation was less effective than prior evidence suggested, but it provided some symptomatic benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, no. 88204146.

Nasal sprays and behavioural interventions compared with usual care for acute respiratory illness in primary care: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: A small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76-0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74-0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89-1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30-1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63-1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74-1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45-0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57-0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group. INTERPRETATION: Advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Combined analysis of allograft inflammatory factor-1, interleukin-18, and Toll-like receptor expression and association with allograft rejection and coronary vasculopathy.

In cardiac transplantation settings, the initial myocardial ischemia and reperfusion may cause myocyte tissue injury and the release of allograft inflammatory factor-1 (AIF-1). This in part may trigger the innate immune response through the modulation of Toll-like receptor-2 (TLR-2) and AIF-1 expression and function, causing the release of proinflammatory cytokines. The goal was to demonstrate these markers in the peripheral blood and biopsy specimen from recipients with cardiac allograft rejection and coronary vasculopathy (CV). Peripheral blood and endomyocardial specimens were tested by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry stains for identification of TLR-2, -4, interleukin-18, and AIF-1 markers and analyzed against clinical rejection grades for rejection. The differences for mRNA transcript levels were determined by one-way analysis of variance. The mRNA expression levels were significantly varied for TLR-2 in monocytes with different rejection grades (P < 0.0001). The mean +/- SEM level of mRNA expression for 3A grade rejection was 64.21 +/- 3.8; grade 1A, 38.4 +/- 3.5; and for Grade 0 was 38.46 +/- 2.8. The TLR-4 mRNA expression was increased but the specificity was not statistically significant. The TLR-2 immunoreactivity was strongly detected in infiltrating mononuclear cells and cardiac myocytes in Grade 3A rejection. AIF-1 expression was increased significantly in the group with 3A rejection and Grade III CV as compared with Grade 0 or 1A. Interleukin-18 receptors were strongly detected in Grade 3A rejection and CV. The expression profiles of AIF-1, TLR-2, and interleukin-18 were correlated with biopsy-proven allograft rejection in both peripheral blood and local tissue, suggesting a potential for diagnostic biomarkers for early detection of allograft rejection.

Root shock revisited: perspectives of early head start mothers on community and policy environments and their effects on child health, development, and school readiness.

Racial differences in school readiness are a form of health disparity. By examining, from the perspective of low-income minority families participating in an Early Head Start study, community and policy environments as they shape and inform lived experiences, we identified several types of social and economic dislocation that undermine the efforts of parents to ready their children for school. The multiple dislocations of community triggered by housing and welfare reform and "urban renewal" are sources of stress for parents and children and affect the health and development of young children. Our findings suggest that racial differences in school readiness result not from race but from poverty and structural racism in American society.

Anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops to reduce antibiotic consumption in children with acute otitis media: the CEDAR RCT.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing in children. Options for improved pain control may influence antibiotic prescribing and consumption. OBJECTIVE: The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) investigated whether or not providing anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops reduced antibiotic consumption in children with AOM. Secondary objectives included pain control and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, parallel-group (two-group initially, then three-group) trial. SETTING: Primary care practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 1- to 10-year-old children presenting within 1 week of suspected AOM onset with ear pain during the preceding 24 hours and not requiring immediate antibiotics. Participating children were logged into the study and allocated using a remote randomisation service. INTERVENTIONS: Two-group trial - unblinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus usual care. Three-group trial - blinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus placebo ear drops and unblinded comparison with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was parent-reported antibiotic use by the child over 8 days following enrolment. Secondary measures included ear pain at day 2 and NHS and societal costs over 8 days. RESULTS: Owing to a delay in provision of the placebo drops, the recruitment period was shortened and most participants were randomly allocated to the two-group study (n = 74) rather than the three-group study (n = 32). Comparing active drops with usual care in the combined two-group and three-group studies, 1 out of 39 (3%) children allocated to the active drops group and 11 out of 38 (29%) children allocated to the usual-care group consumed antibiotics in the 8 days following enrolment [unadjusted odds ratio 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.55; p = 0.009; adjusted for delayed prescribing odds ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.87; p = 0.035]. A total of 43% (3/7) of patients in the placebo drops group consumed antibiotics by day 8, compared with 0% (0/10) of the three-group study active drops groups (p = 0.051). The economic analysis of NHS costs (£12.66 for active drops and £11.36 for usual care) leads to an estimated cost of £5.19 per antibiotic prescription avoided, but with a high degree of uncertainty. A reduction in ear pain at day 2 in the placebo group (n = 7) compared with the active drops group (n = 10) (adjusted difference in means 0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 2.79; p = 0.51) is consistent with chance. No adverse events were reported in children receiving active drops. LIMITATIONS: Estimated treatment effects are imprecise because the sample size target was not met. It is not clear if delayed prescriptions of an antibiotic were written prior to randomisation. Few children received placebo drops, which hindered the investigation of ear pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that reduced antibiotic use can be achieved in children with AOM by combining a no or delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy with anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops. Whether or not the active drops relieved ear pain was not established. FUTURE WORK: The observed reduction in antibiotic consumption following the prescription of ear drops requires replication in a larger study. Future work should establish if the effect of ear drops is due to pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09599764. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Alastair D Hay was funded by a NIHR Research Professorship (funding identifier NIHR-RP-02-12-012).

Ear infections are common in children < 10 years of age, with 40% of these children suffering from an ear infection at least once per year. During the infection, germs multiply in the confined space of the middle ear, resulting in a build-up of pressure that pushes on and stretches the ear drum. This causes severe pain and distress to the child, which in turn leads to disrupted family life. Although there is world-class evidence showing that antibiotics do not help, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advises against their use, > 85% of UK children with middle ear infections (acute otitis media) are prescribed an antibiotic, which is a higher percentage than for any other childhood infection. Antibiotics do not treat the child's pain and, in most cases, they do not help to treat the infection (because many ear infections are caused by viruses that do not respond to antibiotics), but they can cause side effects (such as diarrhoea) and increase the problem of antibiotic resistance, which is a major public health concern. The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) wanted to find out whether or not painkilling ear drops [benzocaine­phenazone otic solution (Auralgan^®) currently manufactured by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare(Pfizer Inc., New York, NY USA)] can, by treating children's ear pain, reduce the number of parents giving their children antibiotics for acute otitis media. Children were given the painkilling drops, placebo (dummy) drops or usual care. The study found that, if the children were given the painkilling drops, significantly fewer of them were given antibiotics. Unfortunately, there were not enough children who took part in the study to change advice on how doctors treat ear infections. However, these results suggest that ear drops help reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and should be investigated in a further larger study.

Infant mental health and family support: Contributions of Early Head Start to an integrated model for community-based early childhood programs.

This paper analyzes the experiences of an Early Head Start (EHS) program in adopting and implementing an infant mental health (IMH) approach in its work with community families. Through qualitative methods (participant observation, qualitative interviews, and case studies), we examined the strategies used, and the challenges encountered, by program staff as they applied IMH principles in their home-visiting interventions with families whose lives involve significant economic, social, and psychological stressors. Our study identified four elements crucial to an effective IMH initiative: (1) teamwork, especially the use of transdisciplinary teams to review family cases, (2) reflective supervision, (3) development of an integrated and empathic understanding of the child's needs and the parent's challenges in meeting those needs, and (4) a dynamic ecological understanding of children, families, and communities in which psychosocial and socioeconomic factors are viewed as mutually important and interactive. We argue that each of these elements both builds on and enhances long-standing dimensions of this EHS program's family support approach, creating an innovative and integrated model of IMH and family support that could prove of value in many community-based programs serving children and families whose emotional health is affected by everyday experiences of economic and social inequality.

'Well, it literally stops me from having a life when it's really bad': a nested qualitative interview study of patient views on the use of self-management treatments for the management of recurrent sinusitis (SNIFS trial).

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience and perceptions of illness, the decision to consult a general practitioner and the use of self-management approaches for chronic or recurrent sinusitis. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interview study. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 32 participants who had been participating in the 'SNIFS' (Steam inhalation and Nasal Irrigation For recurrent Sinusitis) trial in the South of England. METHOD: Thematic analysis of semistructured telephone interviews. RESULTS: Participants often reported dramatic impact on both activities and their quality of life. Participants were aware of both antibiotic side effects and resistance, but if they had previously been prescribed antibiotics, many patients believed that they would be necessary for the future treatment of sinusitis. Participants used self-help treatments for short and limited periods of time only. In the context of the trial, steam inhalation used for recurrent sinusitis was described as acceptable but is seen as having limited effectiveness. Nasal irrigation was viewed as acceptable and beneficial by more patients. However, some participants reported that they would not use the treatment again due to the uncomfortable side effects they experienced, which outweighed any symptom relief, which may have resulted had they continued. CONCLUSIONS: Steam inhalation is acceptable but seen as having limited effectiveness. Nasal irrigation is generally acceptable and beneficial for symptoms, but detailed information on the correct procedure and potential benefits of persisting may increase acceptability and adherence in those patients who find it uncomfortable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 88204146.

Primary care randomised controlled trial of a tailored interactive website for the self-management of respiratory infections (Internet Doctor).

OBJECTIVE: To assess an internet-delivered intervention providing advice to manage respiratory tract infections (RTIs). DESIGN: Open pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care in UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥18) registered with general practitioners, recruited by postal invitation. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised with computer-generated random numbers to access the intervention website (intervention) or not (control). The intervention tailored advice about the diagnosis, natural history, symptom management (particularly paracetamol/ibuprofen use) and when to seek further help. OUTCOMES: Primary: National Health Service (NHS) contacts for those reporting RTIs from monthly online questionnaires for 20 weeks. Secondary: hospitalisations; symptom duration/severity. RESULTS: Results 3044 participants were recruited. 852 in the intervention group and 920 in the control group reported one or more RTIs, among whom there a modest increase in NHS Direct contacts in the intervention group (intervention 44/1734 (2.5%) versus control 24/1842 (1.3%); multivariate Risk Ratio (RR) 2.53 (95% CI 1.10 to 5.82, p=0.029)). Conversely reduced contact with doctors occurred (283/1734 (16.3%) vs 368/1845 (20.0%); risk ratio 0.71, 0.53 to 0.95, p=0.019). Reduction in contacts occurred despite slightly longer illness duration (11.3 days versus 10.9 days respectively; multivariateestimate 0.48 days longer (-0.16 to 1.12, p=0.141) and more days of illness rated moderately bad or worse illness (0.53 days; 0.12 to 0.94, p=0.012). The estimate of slower symptom resolution in the intervention group was attenuated when controlling for whether individuals had used webpages which advocated ibuprofen use (length of illness 0.22 days, −0.51 to 0.95, p=0.551; moderately bad or worse symptoms 0.36 days, −0.08 to 0.80, p=0.105). There was no evidence of increased hospitalisations (risk ratio 0.13; 0.02 to 1.01; p=0.051). CONCLUSIONS: An internet-delivered intervention for the self-management of RTIs modifies help-seeking behaviour, and does not result in more hospital admissions due to delayed help seeking. Advising the use of ibuprofen may not be helpful. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN91518452.

Postal workers' perspectives on communication during the anthrax attack.

In 2001, the nation experienced its first bioterrorism attack, in the form of anthrax sent through the U.S. Postal Service, and public health professionals were challenged to communicate with a critical audience, U.S. postal workers. Postal workers, the first cohort to receive public health messages during a bioterrorist crisis, offer a crucial viewpoint that can be used in the development of best practices in crisis and emergency risk communication. This article reports results of qualitative interviews and focus groups with 65 postal workers employed at three facilities: Trenton, New Jersey; New York City; and Washington, DC. The social context and changing messages were among the factors that damaged trust between postal workers and public health professionals. Lessons learned from this attack contribute to the growing body of knowledge available to guide communications experts and public health professionals charged with crisis and emergency risk communication with the public.

The anthrax vaccine and research: reactions from postal workers and public health professionals.

During the 2001 anthrax attacks, public health agencies faced operational and communication decisions about the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and the anthrax vaccine with affected groups, including postal workers. This communication occurred within an evolving situation with incomplete and uncertain data. Guidelines for prophylactic antibiotics changed several times, contributing to confusion and mistrust. At the end of 60 days of taking antibiotics, people were offered an additional 40 days' supply of antibiotics, with or without the anthrax vaccine, the former constituting an investigational new drug protocol. Using data from interviews and focus groups with 65 postal workers in 3 sites and structured interviews with 16 public health professionals, this article examines the challenges for public health professionals who were responsible for communication with postal workers about the vaccine. Multiple factors affected the response, including a lack of trust, risk perception, disagreement about the recommendation, and the controversy over the military's use of the vaccine. Some postal workers reacted with suspicion to the vaccine offer, believing that they were the subjects of research, and some African American workers specifically drew an analogy to the Tuskegee syphilis study. The consent forms required for the protocol heightened mistrust. Postal workers also had complex and ambivalent responses to additional research on their health. The anthrax attacks present us with an opportunity to understand the challenges of communication in the context of uncertain science and suggest key strategies that may improve communications about vaccines and other drugs authorized for experimental use in future public health emergencies.