A guide for a student-led doctoral-level qualitative methods short course in epidemiology: faculty and student perspectives.

Qualitative research and mixed methods are core competencies for epidemiologists. In response to the shortage of guidance on graduate course development, we wrote a course development guide aimed at faculty and students designing similar courses in epidemiology curricula. The guide combines established educational theory with faculty and student experiences from a recent introductory course for epidemiology and biostatistics doctoral students at the University of Zurich and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. We propose a student-centred course with inverse classroom teaching and practice exercises with faculty input. Integration of student input during the course development process helps align the course syllabus with student needs. The proposed course comprises six sessions that cover learning outcomes in comprehension, knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Following an introductory session, the students engage in face-to-face interviews, focus group interviews, observational methods, analysis and how qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated in mixed methods. Furthermore, the course covers interviewer safety, research ethics, quality in qualitative research and a practice session focused on the use of interview hardware, including video and audio recorders. The student-led teaching characteristic of the course allows for an immersive and reflective teaching-learning environment. After implementation of the course and learning from faculty and student perspectives, we propose these additional foci: a student project to apply learned knowledge to a case study; integration in mixed-methods; and providing faculty a larger space to cover theory and field anecdotes.

GLP-1 receptor agonists for weight reduction in people living with obesity but without diabetes: a living benefit-harm modelling study.

Background: The benefit of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) in weight reduction against potential harms remains unclear. This study aimed at evaluating the benefit-harm balance of initiating GLP-1 RAs versus placebo for weight loss in people living with overweight and obesity but without diabetes. Methods: We performed benefit-harm balance modelling, which will be updated as new evidence emerges. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, controlled trials registry, drug approval and regulatory documents, and outcome preference weights as of April 10, 2024. We synthesize data using pairwise meta-analysis to estimate the effect of GLP-1 RAs to inform the benefit-harm balance modelling. We predicted the absolute effects of the positive and negative outcomes over 1 and 2 years of treatment using exponential models. We applied preference weights to the outcomes, ranging from 0 for least concerning to 1.0 for most concerning. We then calculated whether the benefit of achieving 5% and 10% weight loss outweighed the harms on a common scale. The analyses accounted for the statistical uncertainties of treatment effects, preference weights, and outcome risks. Findings: We included 8 RCTs involving 8847 participants. The pooled average age was 46.7 years, with the majority being women (74%) and people living with obesity (96%). Of 1000 persons treated with GLP-1 RAs for 2 years, 375 (95% confidence interval 352 to 399) achieved a 10% weight loss, and 318 (296 to 339) achieved a 5% weight loss compared to those treated with placebo. Several harm outcomes were more frequent in the GLP-1 RA group, including 41 abdominal pain events per 1000 persons over 2 years (19 to 69), cholelithiasis (8, 1 to 21), constipation (118, 78 to 164), diarrhoea (100, 42 to 173), alopecia (57, 10 to 176), hypoglycaemia (17, 1 to 68), injection site reactions (4, -3 to 19), and vomiting (110, 80 to 145) among others. Achieving a 10% weight loss with GLP-1 RA therapy outweighed the cumulative harms, with a net benefit probability of 0.97 at year 1 and 0.91 at year 2. The absolute net benefit was equivalent to 104 (100 to 112) per 1000 persons achieving a 10% weight loss over 2 years without experiencing any worrisome harm. A 5% weight loss did not show a net benefit, with probabilities of 0.13 and 0.01 at year 1 and year 2, respectively. However, these benefits were sensitive to preference weights, suggesting that even a 5% weight loss could be net beneficial for individuals with less concern about harm outcomes. The net benefit for a 10% weight loss was highest for semaglutide, followed by liraglutide and tirzepatide, with 2-year probabilities of 0.96, 0.72, and 0.60, respectively. Interpretation: The benefit of GLP-1 RAs exceeded the harms for weight loss in the first 2 years of treatment, yet the net benefit was dependent on individual' treatment goals (10% or 5% weight loss) and willingness to accept harms in pursuit of weight loss. This implies that treatment decisions have to be personalized to individuals to optimize benefits and reduce harms and overuse of treatments. Due to varying evidence, especially regarding harm outcomes across studies, it is necessary to continuously update and monitor the benefit-harm balance of GLP-1 RAs. Funding: SNSF and LOOP Zurich.

Effect of Cultural Adaptation of a Smartphone-Based Self-Help Programme on Its Acceptability and Efficacy: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Research on cultural adaptation of psychological interventions indicates that a higher level of adaptation is associated with a higher effect size of the intervention. However, direct comparisons of different levels of adaptations are scarce. Aims: This study used a smartphone-based self-help programme called Step-by-Step (Albanian: Hap-pas-Hapi) for the treatment of psychological distress among Albanian-speaking immigrants in Switzerland and Germany. Two levels of cultural adaptation (i.e., surface vs. deep structure adaptation) were compared. We hypothesised that the deep structure adaptation would enhance the acceptance and efficacy of the intervention. Method: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind randomised controlled trial. Inclusion criteria were good command of the Albanian language, age above 18, and elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale score above 15). Primary outcome measures were the total score of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist and the number of participants who completed at least three (out of five) sessions. Secondary outcomes were global functioning, well-being, post-traumatic stress, and self-defined problems. Results: Two-hundred-twenty-two participants were included, of which 18 (8%) completed the post-assessments. The number of participants who completed the third session was equal in both conditions, with N = 5 (5%) and N = 6 (6%) respectively. Discussion: Drop-out rates were high in both conditions, and no group difference was found regarding the acceptance of the intervention. The high drop-out rate stands in contrast with other trials testing Step-by-Step. Future research should examine cultural factors impacting recruitment strategies, as insights could help to reduce participant drop-out rates in clinical trials.

Socioeconomic Status and Adherence to Preventive Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Switzerland: A Population Based Digital Cohort Analysis.

Objectives: To assess the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and self-reported adherence to preventive measures in Switzerland during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: 4,299 participants from a digital cohort were followed between September 2020 and November 2021. Baseline equivalised disposable income and education were used as SES proxies. Adherence was assessed over time. We investigated the association between SES and adherence using multivariable mixed logistic regression, stratifying by age (below/above 65 years) and two periods (before/after June 2021, to account for changes in vaccine coverage and epidemiological situation). Results: Adherence was high across all SES strata before June 2021. After, participants with higher equivalised disposable income were less likely to adhere to preventive measures compared to participants in the first (low) quartile [second (Adj.OR, 95% CI) (0.56, 0.37-0.85), third (0.38, 0.23-0.64), fourth (0.60, 0.36-0.98)]. We observed similar results for education. Conclusion: No differences by SES were found during the period with high SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates and stringent measures. Following the broad availability of vaccines, lower incidence, and eased measures, differences by SES started to emerge. Our study highlights the need for contextual interpretation when assessing SES impact on adherence to preventive measures.