Factors affecting the support for physical activity in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a national survey of health care professionals' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Many children and adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) don't meet the recommended levels of physical activity. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a key role in supporting and encouraging children and adolescents with T1DM to be physically active. This study aims to understand the perspectives of HCPs in relation to supporting physical activity and implementing guidelines relating to physical activity. METHODS: An online mixed methods survey was circulated to HCPs in pediatric diabetes units in England and Wales. Participants were asked about how they support physical activity in their clinic and their perceptions of barriers/enablers of providing physical activity support to children and adolescents with T1DM. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. An deductive thematic approach was applied to the free text responses using the Capability Opportunity Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B) as a framework. RESULTS: Responses were received from 114 individuals at 77 different pediatric diabetes units (45% of pediatric diabetes units in England and Wales). HCPs surveyed felt that the promotion of physical activity is important (90%) and advised patients to increase levels of physical activity (88%). 19% of the respondents felt they did not have sufficient knowledge to provide support. HCPs reported limited knowledge and confidence, time and resources as barriers to providing support. They also felt the current guidance was too complicated with few practical solutions. CONCLUSION: Pediatric HCPs need training and support to be able to encourage and support children and adolescents with T1D to be a physical activity. In addition, resources that provide simple and practical advice to manage glucose around exercise are needed.

Brain tumor craniotomy outcomes for dual-eligible medicare and medicaid patients: a 10-year nationwide analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Dual-eligible (DE) patients, simultaneous Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, have been shown to have poorer clinical outcomes while incurring higher resource utilization. However, neurosurgical oncology outcomes for DE patients are poorly characterized. Accordingly, we examined the impact of DE status on perioperative outcomes following glioma, meningioma, or metastasis resection. METHODS: We identified all admissions undergoing a craniotomy for glioma, meningioma, or metastasis resection in the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011. Assessed outcomes included inpatient mortality, complications, discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs. Multivariable regression adjusting for 13 patient, severity, and hospital characteristics assessed the association between DE status and outcomes, relative to four reference insurance groups (Medicare-only, Medicaid-only, private insurance, self-pay). RESULTS: Of 195,725 total admissions analyzed, 3.0% were dual-eligible beneficiaries (n = 5933). DEs were younger than Medicare admissions (P < 0.001) but older than Medicaid, private, and self-pay admissions (P < 0.001). Relative to other insurance groups, DEs also exhibited higher severity of illness, risk of mortality, and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores as well as treatment at low-volume hospitals (all P < 0.001). DEs had lower mortality than self-pay admissions (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, P = 0.017). Compared to Medicare, Medicaid, private, and self-pay admissions, DEs had lower rates of discharge disposition (OR 0.53, 0.50, 0.34, and 0.27, respectively, all P < 0.001). DEs also had higher complications (OR 1.23 and 1.20, respectively, both P < 0.05) and LOS (ß = 1.06 and 1.13, respectively, both P < 0.01) than Medicare and private insurance beneficiaries. Differences in discharge disposition remained significant for all three tumor subtypes, but only glioma DE admissions continued to exhibit higher complications and LOS. CONCLUSIONS: DEs undergoing definitive craniotomy for brain tumor had higher rates of unfavorable discharge disposition compared to all other insurance groups and, especially for glioma surgery, had higher inpatient complication rates and LOS. Practice and policy reforms to improve outcomes for this vulnerable clinical population are warranted.

The effect of levetiracetam treatment on survival in patients with glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (LEV) is an anti-epileptic drug (AED) that sensitizes glioblastoma (GBM) to temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy by inhibiting O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) expression. Adding LEV to the standard of care (SOC) for GBM may improve TMZ efficacy. This study aimed to pool the existing evidence in the literature to quantify LEV's effect on GBM survival and characterize its safety profile to determine whether incorporating LEV into the SOC is warranted. METHOD: A search of CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to May 2021 was performed to identify relevant articles. Hazard ratios (HR), median overall survival, and adverse events were pooled using random-effect models. Meta-regression, funnel plots, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were utilized to identify sources of heterogeneity, bias, and statistical influence. RESULTS: From 20 included studies, 5804 GBM patients underwent meta-analysis, of which 1923 (33%) were treated with LEV. Administration of LEV did not significantly improve survival in the entire patient population (HR 0.89, p = 0.094). Significant heterogeneity was observed during pooling of HRs (I2 = 75%, p < 0.01). Meta-regression determined that LEV treatment effect decreased with greater rates of MGMT methylation (RC = 0.03, p = 0.02) and increased with greater proportions of female patients (RC = - 0.05, p = 0.002). Concurrent LEV with the SOC for GBM did not increase odds of adverse events relative to other AEDs. CONCLUSIONS: Levetiracetam treatment may not be effective for all GBM patients. Instead, LEV may be better suited for treating specific molecular profiles of GBM. Further studies are necessary to identify optimal GBM candidates for LEV.

The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A registered report.

OBJECTIVES: Problematic substance use is one of the most stigmatized health conditions leading research to examine how the labels and models used to describe it influence public stigma. Two recent studies examine whether beliefs in a disease model of addiction influence public stigma but result in equivocal findings-in line with the mixed-blessings model, Kelly et al. (2021) found that while the label "chronically relapsing brain disease" reduced blame attribution, it decreased prognostic optimism and increased perceived danger and need for continued care; however, Rundle et al. (2021) conclude absence of evidence. This study isolates the different factors used in these two studies to assess whether health condition (drug use vs. health concern), etiological label (brain disease vs. problem), and attributional judgment (low vs. high treatment stability) influence public stigma toward problematic substance use. METHOD: Overall, 1,613 participants were assigned randomly to one of the eight vignette conditions that manipulated these factors. They completed self-report measures of discrete and general public stigma and an indirect measure of discrimination. RESULTS: Greater social distance, danger, and public stigma but lower blame were ascribed to drug use relative to a health concern. Greater (genetic) blame was reported when drug use was labeled as a "chronically relapsing brain disease" relative to a "problem." Findings for attributional judgment were either inconclusive or statistically equivalent. DISCUSSION: The labels used to describe problematic substance use appear to impact discrete elements of stigma. We suggest that addiction is a functional attribution, which may explain the mixed literature on the impact of etiological labels on stigma to date. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Careless responding in crowdsourced alcohol research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of practices and prevalence.

Crowdsourcing-the process of using the internet to outsource research participation to "workers"-has considerable benefits, enabling research to be conducted quickly, efficiently, and responsively, diversifying participant recruitment, and allowing access to hard-to-reach samples. One of the biggest threats to this method of online data collection however is the prevalence of careless responders who can significantly affect data quality. The aims of this preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis were: (a) to examine the prevalence of screening for careless responding in crowdsourced alcohol-related studies; (b) to examine the pooled prevalence of careless responding; and (c) to identify any potential moderators of careless responding across studies. Our review identified 96 eligible studies (∼126,130 participants), of which 51 utilized at least one measure of careless responding, 53.2%, 95% CI [42.7%-63.3%]; ∼75,334 participants. Of these, 48 reported the number of participants identified by careless responding method(s) and the pooled prevalence rate was ∼11.7%, 95% CI [7.6%-16.5%]. Studies using the MTurk platform identified more careless responders compared to other platforms, and the number of careless response items was positively associated with prevalence rates. The most common measure of careless responding was an attention check question, followed by implausible response times. We suggest that researchers plan for such attrition when crowdsourcing participants and provide practical recommendations for handling and reporting careless responding in alcohol research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).