Contributions and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples to the study of mercury in the Arctic.

Arctic Indigenous Peoples are among the most exposed humans when it comes to foodborne mercury (Hg). In response, Hg monitoring and research have been on-going in the circumpolar Arctic since about 1991; this work has been mainly possible through the involvement of Arctic Indigenous Peoples. The present overview was initially conducted in the context of a broader assessment of Hg research organized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. This article provides examples of Indigenous Peoples' contributions to Hg monitoring and research in the Arctic, and discusses approaches that could be used, and improved upon, when carrying out future activities. Over 40 mercury projects conducted with/by Indigenous Peoples are identified for different circumpolar regions including the U.S., Canada, Greenland, Sweden, Finland, and Russia as well as instances where Indigenous Knowledge contributed to the understanding of Hg contamination in the Arctic. Perspectives and visions of future Hg research as well as recommendations are presented. The establishment of collaborative processes and partnership/co-production approaches with scientists and Indigenous Peoples, using good communication practices and transparency in research activities, are key to the success of research and monitoring activities in the Arctic. Sustainable funding for community-driven monitoring and research programs in Arctic countries would be beneficial and assist in developing more research/monitoring capacity and would promote a more holistic approach to understanding Hg in the Arctic. These activities should be well connected to circumpolar/international initiatives to ensure broader availability of the information and uptake in policy development.

The AEDUCATE Collaboration. Comprehensive antenatal education birth preparation programmes to reduce the rates of caesarean section in nulliparous women. Protocol for an individual participant data prospective meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Rates of medical interventions in normal labour and birth are increasing. This prospective meta-analysis (PMA) proposes to assess whether the addition of a comprehensive multicomponent birth preparation programme reduces caesarean section (CS) in nulliparous women compared with standard hospital care. Additionally, do participant characteristics, intervention components or hospital characteristics modify the effectiveness of the programme? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Population: women with singleton vertex pregnancies, no planned caesarean section (CS) or epidural.Intervention: in addition to hospital-based standard care, a comprehensive antenatal education programme that includes multiple components for birth preparation, addressing the three objectives: preparing women and their birth partner/support person for childbirth through education on physiological/hormonal birth (knowledge and understanding); building women's confidence through psychological preparation (positive mindset) and support their ability to birth without pain relief using evidence-based tools (tools and techniques). The intervention could occur in a hospital-based or community setting.Comparator: standard care alone in hospital-based maternity units. OUTCOMES: Primary: CS.Secondary: epidural analgesia, mode of birth, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn resuscitation, psychosocial well-being.Subgroup analysis: parity, model of care, maternal risk status, maternal education, maternal socio-economic status, intervention components. STUDY DESIGN: An individual participant data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of randomised controlled trials, including cluster design. Each trial is conducted independently but share core protocol elements to contribute data to the PMA. Participating trials are deemed eligible for the PMA if their results are not yet known outside their Data Monitoring Committees. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participants in the individual trials will consent to participation, with respective trials receiving ethical approval by their local Human Research Ethics Committees. Individual datasets remain the property of trialists, and can be published prior to the publication of final PMA results. The overall data for meta-analysis will be held, analysed and published by the collaborative group, led by the Cochrane PMA group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020103857.

Comparison of Self-applied Heat Therapy for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects on ocular temperature, lipid layer grade, tear film stability, and tear meniscus height after a single application of two commercially available warm compresses in mild-to-moderate dry eye and to report participant treatment preference. METHODS: Forty-one subjects with mild-to-moderate dry eye symptoms were enrolled in a randomized, paired-eye, investigator-masked trial. Heat was applied simultaneously to one eye (randomized) with a portable eye mask (EyeGiene) and to the contralateral eye with a microwave-heated flaxseed eye bag (MGDRx Eye Bag). Outer and inner eyelid temperatures, tear film lipid layer grade (LLG), and noninvasive tear film breakup time (NIBUT) were measured at baseline and immediately after 10 minutes of device application. RESULTS: Outer and inner eyelid temperatures, LLG, and NIBUT did not differ before treatment between eyes assigned to eye mask and eye bag therapy. All measurements were significantly increased from baseline, after warming with both devices (all p < 0.05). Outer and inner eyelid temperature changes were significantly greater with the eye bag than with the eye mask (outer eyelid, +3.5 ± 1.0°C vs. +2.4 ± 0.8°C; inner eyelid, +3.5 ± 1.0°C vs. +2.5 ± 0.9°C; all p < 0.001), although there was no significant difference in LLG and NIBUT improvement between treatments (all p > 0.05). A majority of subjects (78%) preferred the application of heat with the eye bag over the eye mask. CONCLUSIONS: Both the EyeGiene mask and the MGDRx Eye Bag are convenient eyelid warming devices that result in clinically and statistically significant increases in NIBUT and LLG in patients with mild-to-moderate dry eye symptoms. The MGDRx Eye Bag is more effective in raising ocular temperature and is the preferred treatment method among subjects.