The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics.

The way we "talk" about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say" and "what people hear" when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Participants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences where they are at. Our research has demonstrated that everyday talk about genomics, used by researchers and clinicians alike, is received differently than it is likely intended. We may inadvertently be further disengaging the very audiences that diversity programs aim to reach.

Public engagement with genomics.

As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are oftenunsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about; we term this dis-connection a 'disengaged public audience'. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.

Impact of bottle size on in-home consumption of wine: feasibility and acceptability randomised cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing alcohol consumption across populations would prevent many non-communicable diseases. Large packages increase food and non-alcoholic drink consumption and large glasses increase wine consumption. Smaller bottles may reduce alcohol consumption but their impact is uncertain. This study aims to (i) explore the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption and (ii) estimate the effect size and variance of the intervention on consumption to inform the design of future studies. METHODS: Cross-over randomised study in which 16 households in Cambridge, England, consuming at least two 750-ml bottles of wine each week, received a pre-set volume of wine biweekly for 4 weeks, in 750-ml and 375-ml bottles, in random order. Consumption was assessed by recording the number of empty and partially full bottles at the end of each biweekly period. At the end of the study, household representatives were interviewed about their experiences of participating in the study. RESULTS: The study procedures proved feasible. Comparable to similar trials, 14% of identified eligible households (18/125) consented to participate in the study. Attrition between consent and study completion was 11% (2/18) and 0% between study periods and 13% of households (2/16) correctly identified the study aim. The study procedures were considered acceptable. After adjusting for guest and out-of-home consumption, the difference in consumption between the 750-ml (3385.2 ml; SD = 1698.5) and 375-ml bottles (3376.7 ml; SD = 1719.0) was 8.4 ml (SD = 1235.4; 95%CI - 596.9, 613.8). Results suggest a possible order effect, with households receiving the 375-ml bottles first consuming more wine out of the 750-ml bottles and vice versa. This might also reflect an increase in consumption with study duration. Households receiving the 375-ml bottles first (6315.9 ml; SD = 3293.5) also drank less wine overall than those receiving the 750-ml bottles first (7335.4 ml; SD = 3735.4). DISCUSSION: The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of running a large-scale randomised study to assess the impact of bottle size on in-home wine consumption. Due to the heterogeneous patterning of results, a future study will be powered using the variance observed in the current study to detect a meaningful reduction of 250 ml of wine when consumed from smaller compared with larger bottles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF): rmk43; May 23, 2017.

Portion size estimation in dietary assessment: a systematic review of existing tools, their strengths and limitations.

CONTEXT: Overestimation or underestimation of portion size leads to measurement error during dietary assessment. OBJECTIVE: To identify portion size estimation elements (PSEEs) and evaluate their relative efficacy in relation to dietary assessment, and assess the quality of studies validating PSEEs. DATA SELECTION AND EXTRACTION: Electronic databases, internet sites, and cross-references of published records were searched, generating 16 801 initial records, from which 334 records were reviewed and 542 PSEEs were identified, comprising 5% 1-dimensional tools (eg, food guides), 46% 2-dimensional tools (eg, photographic atlases), and 49% 3-dimensional tools (eg, household utensils). Out of 334 studies, 21 validated a PSEE (compared PSEE to actual food amounts) and 13 compared PSEEs with other PSEEs. CONCLUSION: Quality assessment showed that only a few validation studies were of high quality. According to the findings of validation and comparison studies, food image-based PSEEs were more accurate than food models and household utensils. Key factors to consider when selecting a PSEE include efficiency of the PSEE and its applicability to targeted settings and populations.

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic risk factors: Multiphase feasibility study with randomised controlled component.

Uncertainties remain about the overall effect of sit-stand desks for reducing prolonged sitting among office-based workers. This study assessed the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of the impact of workplace sit-stand desks on overall energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes. It involved four phases: Phase I: online survey; Phase II: workspace auditing; Phase III: randomised intervention (provision of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months); Phase IV: qualitative component. Participants were office-based employees of two companies in Cambridge, England. Among Phase I participants interested in the trial, 100 were randomised to Phase II. Of those with workspaces suitable for sit-stand desks, 20 were randomised to Phase III. Those allocated to the intervention completed Phase IV. Outcomes included: trial participation interest, desk-type (full desks/desk mounts) and assessment location (work/laboratory/home) preferences (Phase I); proportion of workspaces permitting sit-stand desk installation (Phase II); energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes (Phase III); study participation experiences (Phase IV). Data were collected between May 2015 and December 2016. Recruitment and trial implementation were feasible: 92% of survey respondents expressed participation interest; 80% of workspaces could accommodate sit-stand desks; assessments were done in workplaces, preferred by 71%. Sit-stand desk provision reduced workplace sitting time by 94 min/day (95% CI 17.7-170.7). Their impact on energy expenditure and cardio-metabolic outcomes is unclear. The results confirm the feasibility of a trial assessing sit-stand desks' impact on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes, which should reduce uncertainty concerning the intervention's potential to reduce the health risks of prolonged sitting. Trial registration ISRCTN44827407.

Dietary assessment in minority ethnic groups: a systematic review of instruments for portion-size estimation in the United Kingdom.

Context: Dietary assessment in minority ethnic groups is critical for surveillance programs and for implementing effective interventions. A major challenge is the accurate estimation of portion sizes for traditional foods and dishes. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to assess records published up to 2014 describing a portion-size estimation element (PSEE) applicable to the dietary assessment of UK-residing ethnic minorities. Data sources, selection, and extraction: Electronic databases, internet sites, and theses repositories were searched, generating 5683 titles, from which 57 eligible full-text records were reviewed. Data analysis: Forty-two publications about minority ethnic groups (n = 20) or autochthonous populations (n = 22) were included. The most common PSEEs (47%) were combination tools (eg, food models and portion-size lists), followed by portion-size lists in questionnaires/guides (19%) and image-based and volumetric tools (17% each). Only 17% of PSEEs had been validated against weighed data. Conclusions: When developing ethnic-specific dietary assessment tools, it is important to consider customary portion sizes by sex and age, traditional household utensil usage, and population literacy levels. Combining multiple PSEEs may increase accuracy, but such methods require validation.