Fear in general populations: A cross-sectional study on perceived fear of common diseases, COVID-19, life events, and environmental threats in 30 countries.

Background: In this study, we assessed the general population's fears towards various diseases and events, aiming to inform public health strategies that balance health-seeking behaviours. Methods: We surveyed adults from 30 countries across all World Health Organization (WHO) regions between July 2020 and August 2021. Participants rated their fear of 11 factors on an 11-point Likert scale. We stratified the data by age and gender and examined variations across countries and regions through multidimensional preference analysis. Results: Of the 16 512 adult participants, 62.7% (n = 10 351) were women. The most feared factor was the loss of family members, reported by 4232 participants (25.9%), followed by cancer (n = 2248, 13.7%) and stroke (n = 1416, 8.7%). The highest weighted fear scores were for loss of family members (mean (x̄) = 7.46, standard deviation (SD) = 3.04), cancer (x̄ = 7.00, SD = 3.09), and stroke (x̄ = 6.61, SD = 3.24). The least feared factors included animals/insects (x̄ = 3.72, SD = 2.96), loss of a mobile phone (x̄ = 4.27, SD = 2.98), and social isolation (x̄ = 4.83, SD = 3.13). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was the sixth most feared factor (x̄ = 6.23, SD = 2.92). Multidimensional preference analyses showed distinct fears of COVID-19 and job loss in Australia and Burundi. The other countries primarily feared loss of family members, cancer, stroke, and heart attacks; this ranking was consistent across WHO regions, economic levels, and COVID-19 severity levels. Conclusions: Fear of family loss can improve public health messaging, highlighting the need for bereavement support and the prevention of early death-causing diseases. Addressing cancer fears is crucial to encouraging the use of preventive services. Fear of non-communicable diseases remains high during health emergencies. Top fears require more resources and countries with similar concerns should collaborate internationally for effective fear management.

Building a baby-friendly community: Development, strategy, implementation and evaluation of a BFCI program.

AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of the use of baby-friendly community initiative (BFCI) model on various stakeholders in the community. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental research design. METHOD: The study was conducted in public premises and online workshops from April 2019 to September 2022. Participants were followed up for a period of 1 month, except for those employed at public premises. The program involved training based on an accredited BFCI framework to cultivate a breastfeeding-friendly attitude and knowledge. A paired sample t-test was used to examine breastfeeding attitude and knowledge scores before and after BFCI training among staff employed from public premises. An analysis of variance was conducted to examine the breastfeeding self-efficacy and attitude scores, measured repeatedly at different timepoints over 1-month timepoint (T0, T1 and T2) among pregnant and postpartum women. RESULTS: A total of 2340 perinatal women and 1339 staff from public premises were recruited. For staff, there was an increase in the mean score of breastfeeding knowledge and attitude by 5.8 and 6.1, respectively, at T1. Similarly, for perinatal women, there was an increase in the mean score of breastfeeding self-efficacy and attitude by 6.6 and 3.3, respectively, at T1. CONCLUSION: In summary, a BFCI model, with active community participation, accreditation and an award system, has been effective in promoting breastfeeding. Adapting the baby-friendly hospital initiative to local contexts and employing a social theory model can enhance breastfeeding promotion and improve infant health outcomes. Prioritizing culturally sensitive breastfeeding education is crucial for successful BFCI implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Healthcare professionals should consider clients' culture and socio-economic backgrounds when providing breastfeeding education to maximize effectiveness. The target audience for breastfeeding education should be expanded to include various community stakeholders beyond families. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? This study addressed the problem of knowledge gaps among stakeholders in building a breastfeeding-friendly community, particularly in implementing a baby-friendly community initiative (BFCI) as part of a baby-friendly hospital initiative (BFHI). The research filled a service gap by providing effective interventions targeting community stakeholders and assessing the impact of a BFCI program on their knowledge and attitudes towards breastfeeding. What were the main findings? The findings highlighted the effectiveness of a BFCI program in enhancing breastfeeding knowledge and attitudes among frontline staff and increasing breastfeeding confidence among mothers. These findings contribute to the understanding of the program's impact on different stakeholders in the community. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? It impacts on global policymakers by providing insights for developing comprehensive guidelines for future BFCI implementations. It also contributes to the creation of a more baby-friendly community, benefiting breastfeeding families and their infants by promoting and supporting breastfeeding families. REPORTING METHOD: This study has adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines using the TREND reporting guideline. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: This study provides an overview of the establishment of a localized BFCI program. It also opens up a new direction for the community to investigate BFCI strategies for community stakeholders. It also provides evidence to support other countries in following a similar process, as each country approaches becoming breastfeeding-friendly in its own unique way. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: No protocol.

Extended Paid Maternity Leave Associated With Improved Maternal Mental Health In Hong Kong.

In July 2020, Hong Kong extended statutory paid maternity leave from ten weeks to fourteen weeks to align with International Labour Organization standards. We used the policy enactment as an observational natural experiment to assess the mental health implications of this policy change on probable postnatal depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scores of 10 or higher) and postpartum emotional well-being. Using an opportunistic observational study design, we recruited 1,414 survey respondents with births before (August 1-December 10, 2020) and after (December 11, 2020-July 18, 2022) policy implementation. Participants had a mean age of thirty-two, were majority primiparous, and were mostly working in skilled occupations. Our results show that the policy was associated with a 22 percent decrease in mothers experiencing postnatal depressive symptoms and a 33 percent decrease in postpartum emotional well-being interference. Even this modest change in policy, an additional four weeks of paid leave, was associated with significant mental health benefits. Policy makers should consider extending paid maternity leave to international norms to improve mental health among working mothers and to support workforce retention.

Key lifestyles and health outcomes across 16 prevalent chronic diseases: A network analysis of an international observational study.

Background: Central and bridge nodes can drive significant overall improvements within their respective networks. We aimed to identify them in 16 prevalent chronic diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to guide effective intervention strategies and appropriate resource allocation for most significant holistic lifestyle and health improvements. Methods: We surveyed 16 512 adults from July 2020 to August 2021 in 30 territories. Participants self-reported their medical histories and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on 18 lifestyle factors and 13 health outcomes. For each disease subgroup, we generated lifestyle, health outcome, and bridge networks. Variables with the highest centrality indices in each were identified central or bridge. We validated these networks using nonparametric and case-dropping subset bootstrapping and confirmed central and bridge variables' significantly higher indices through a centrality difference test. Findings: Among the 48 networks, 44 were validated (all correlation-stability coefficients >0.25). Six central lifestyle factors were identified: less consumption of snacks (for the chronic disease: anxiety), less sugary drinks (cancer, gastric ulcer, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes), less smoking tobacco (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), frequency of exercise (depression and fatty liver disease), duration of exercise (irritable bowel syndrome), and overall amount of exercise (autoimmune disease, diabetes, eczema, heart attack, and high cholesterol). Two central health outcomes emerged: less emotional distress (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, eczema, fatty liver disease, gastric ulcer, heart attack, high cholesterol, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes) and quality of life (anxiety, autoimmune disease, cancer, depression, diabetes, and irritable bowel syndrome). Four bridge lifestyles were identified: consumption of fruits and vegetables (diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, and insomnia), less duration of sitting (eczema, fatty liver disease, and heart attack), frequency of exercise (autoimmune disease, depression, and heart attack), and overall amount of exercise (anxiety, gastric ulcer, and insomnia). The centrality difference test showed the central and bridge variables had significantly higher centrality indices than others in their networks (P < 0.05). Conclusion: To effectively manage chronic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic, enhanced interventions and optimised resource allocation toward central lifestyle factors, health outcomes, and bridge lifestyles are paramount. The key variables shared across chronic diseases emphasise the importance of coordinated intervention strategies.