Association of the retail food environment, BMI, dietary patterns, and socioeconomic position in urban areas of Mexico.

The retail food environment is a key modifiable driver of food choice and the risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study aimed to assess the relationship between the density of food retailers, body mass index (BMI), dietary patterns, and socioeconomic position in Mexico. Cross-sectional dietary data, BMI and socioeconomic characteristics of adult participants came from the nationally representative 2012 National Health and Nutrition Survey in Mexico. Geographical and food outlet data were obtained from official statistics. Densities of food outlets per census tract area (CTA) were calculated. Dietary patterns were determined using exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis. The association of food environment variables, socioeconomic position, BMI, and dietary patterns was assessed using two-level multilevel linear regression models. Three dietary patterns were identified-the healthy, the unhealthy and the carbohydrates-and-drinks dietary pattern. Lower availability of fruit and vegetable stores was associated with an unhealthier dietary pattern whilst a higher restaurant density was associated with a carbohydrates-and-drinks pattern. A graded and inverse association was observed for fruit and vegetable store density and socioeconomic position (SEP)-lower-income populations had a reduced availability of fruit and vegetable stores, compared with higher-income populations. A higher density of convenience stores was associated with a higher BMI when adjusting for unhealthy dietary patterns. Upper-income households were more likely to consume healthy dietary patterns and middle-upper-income households were less likely to consume unhealthy dietary patterns when exposed to high densities of fruit and vegetable stores. When exposed to a high concentration of convenience stores, lower and upper-lower-income households were more likely to consume unhealthy dietary patterns. Food environment and sociodemographic conditions within neighbourhoods may affect dietary behaviours. Food environment interventions and policies which improve access to healthy foods and restrict access to unhealthy foods may facilitate healthier diets and contribute to the prevention of NCDs.

What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers (OSCs). DESIGN: Observational study using a publicly available free OSC. PARTICIPANTS: Healthily OSC, which provided consultations in English, was used to record consultation outcomes from two lay and four expert inputters using 139 standardised patient vignettes. Each vignette included three diagnostic solutions and a triage recommendation in one of three categories of triage urgency. A panel of three independent general practitioners interpreted the vignettes to arrive at an alternative set of diagnostic and triage solutions. Both sets of diagnostic and triage solutions were consolidated to arrive at a final consolidated version for benchmarking. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six inputters simulated 834 standardised patient evaluations using Healthily OSC and recorded outputs (triage solution, signposting, and whether the correct diagnostic solution appeared first or within the first three differentials). We estimated Cohen's kappa to assess how interpretations by different inputters could lead to divergent OSC output even when using the same vignette or when compared with a separate panel of physicians. RESULTS: There was moderate agreement on triage recommendation (kappa=0.48), and substantial agreement on consultation outcomes between all inputters (kappa=0.73). OSC performance improved significantly from baseline when compared against the final consolidated diagnostic and triage solution (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical vignettes are inherently limited in their utility to benchmark the diagnostic accuracy or triage safety of OSC. Real-world evidence studies involving real patients are recommended to benchmark the performance of OSC against a panel of physicians.

Risk of COVID-19 in shielded and nursing care home patients: a cohort study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 cases were first detected in the UK in January 2020 and vulnerable patients were asked to shield from March to reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection. AIM: To determine the risk and determinants of COVID-19 diagnosis in shielded versus non-shielded groups, adjusted for key comorbidities not explained by shielding. DESIGN & SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of adults with COVID-19 infection between 1 February 2020 and 15 May 2020 in west London. METHOD: Individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified in SystmOne records using clinical codes. Infection risks were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, nursing home status, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 57 713 adults, 573 (1%) individuals were identified as shielded and 1074 adults had documented COVID-19 infections (1.9%). COVID-19 infection rate in the shielded group individuals compared with non-shielded adult individuals was 6.5% (n = 37/573) versus 1.8% (n = 1037/57 140), P<0.001. A multivariable fully adjusted Cox proportional hazards (CPH) regression identified that COVID-19 infection was increased with shielding status (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 2.30; P = 0.048). Other determinants of COVID-19 infection included nursing home residency (aHR 7.05; 95% CI = 4.22 to 11.77; P<0.001); Black African (aHR 2.52; 95% CI = 1.99 to 3.18; P<0.001), Other (aHR 1.74; 95% CI = 1.42 to 2.13; P<0.001), Non-stated (aHR 1.70; 95% CI = 1.02 to 2.84; P = 0.04), or South Asian ethnic group (aHR 1.46; 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.93; P = 0.01); history of respiratory disease (aHR 1.51; 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.16; P = 0.02); deprivation (third versus least deprived Index of Multiple Deprivation [IMD] quintile) (aHR 1.25 ; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.56; P = 0.05); obesity (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m2) (aHR 1.39; 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.63; P<0.001); and age (aHR 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.02; P<0.001. Male sex was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 infection (aHR 0.71; 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.82; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Shielded individuals had a higher COVID-19 infection rate compared with non-shielded individuals, after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, nursing home status, and comorbidities.

Hypoxia and angiogenic biomarkers in prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BTb).

PURPOSE: To investigate angiogenic and hypoxia biomarkers to predict outcome in patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BTb) for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: Prostate biopsy samples were collected prospectively in patients entered into a phase 3 randomised controlled trial of patients receiving EBRT or EBRT + HDR-BTb. Univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards model were performed to identify associations between immunohistochemical staining of hypoxia inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF1α), glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1), osteopontin (OPN) and microvessel density (MVD) using CD-34 antibody with clinical outcome. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS) and secondary endpoint was distant metastasis free survival (DMFS). RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry was available for 204 patients. Increased OPN (Hazard ratio [HR] 2.38, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.06-5.34, p < 0.036) and GLUT1 (HR 2.36, 95%CI 1.39-4.01, p < 0.001) expression were predictive of worse BRFS. Increased GLUT1 expression (HR 2.22, 1.02-4.84, p = 0.045) was predictive of worse DMFS. Increased MVD (CD-34) (HR 1.82, 95%CI 1.06-3.14, p = 0.03) and OPN (HR 1.82, 95%CI 1.06-3.14, p = 0.03) but reduced GLUT1 expression (HR 0.40, 95%CI 0.20-0.79, p = 0.009) were predictive of improved BRFS in patients receiving EBRT + HDR-BTb. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest angiogenic and hypoxia biomarkers may predict outcome and benefit of dose escalation, however further validation in prospective studies including hypoxia modification is needed. Trial registration number ISRCTN98241100, registered with ISRCTN at http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/.

Protocol for developing a core outcome set for evaluating school-based physical activity interventions in primary schools.

INTRODUCTION: Primary school-based physical activity interventions, such as The Daily Mile initiative, have the potential to increase children's physical activity levels over time, which is associated with a variety of health benefits. Comparing interventions or combining results of several studies of a single intervention is challenging because previous studies have examined different outcomes or used different measures that are not feasible or relevant for researchers in school settings. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) for primary school-based physical activity interventions would ensure outcomes important to those involved in implementing and evaluating interventions are standardised. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our aim is to develop a COS for studies of school-based physical activity interventions. We will achieve this by undertaking a four-stage process:(1) identify a list of outcomes assessed in studies through a systematic review of international literature; (2) establish domains from these outcomes to produce questionnaire items; (3) prioritise outcomes through a two-stage Delphi survey with four key stakeholder groups (researchers, public health professionals, educators and parents), where stakeholders rate the importance of each outcome on a 9-point Likert scale (consensus that the outcomes should be included in the COS will be determined as 70% or more of all stakeholders scoring the outcome 7%-9% and 15% or less scoring 1 to 3); (4) achieve consensus on a final COS in face-to-face meetings with a sample of stakeholders and primary school children. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval from Imperial College London (ref: 19IC5428). The results of this study will be disseminated via conference presentations/public health meetings, peer-reviewed publications and through appropriate media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET) number: 1322.