Systematic Review on the Impact of Salt-Reduction Initiatives by Socioeconomic Position to Address Health Inequalities in Adult Populations.

CONTEXT: International evidence shows that individuals from low socioeconomic positions (SEPs) consume a greater amount of salt than those from higher SEPs. This health inequality reflects a disproportionate effect of salt-reduction initiatives, and explains a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease among the most vulnerable populations. Assessing this impact can help tailor implementation strategies in the future for the benefit of the whole population. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to systematically review the literature and assess the impact of salt-reduction initiatives on health and behavioral outcomes of adults by SEP. DATA SOURCES: The search strategy was conducted in 6 databases (CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science) using the terms sodium or salt, social class, policy, intervention or campaign. Peer-reviewed articles assessing salt-reduction interventions in adults reporting dietary or behavioral changes on salt consumption measurements by SEP were considered for inclusion. Articles in which salt intake data were not reported by SEP were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers collected data independently using a predesigned electronic form. The AXIS and RoB 2 tools were used for critical appraisal. DATA ANALYSIS: Eight studies containing data from 111 548 adults were interpreted according to study design following a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: Salt-reduction initiatives are effective at reducing the intake of salt and sodium in adults. When reporting the impact of these initiatives, research outcomes are generally not evaluated by SEP, representing a question yet to be explored. CONCLUSION: A small number of articles that focused on the impact of salt-reduction interventions reported salt consumption measurements by SEP, indicating a critical gap in research. The limited evidence suggests potentially greater health benefits to be gained from the implementation of population-wide initiatives in adults of low SEP. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021238055.

How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn. RESULTS: Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order. CONCLUSION: Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports.

Suicide prevention curriculum development for health and social care students: Protocol for a scoping review.

Suicide has become a serious public health concern and international research has shown that the majority of individuals who die by suicide had receive healthcare in the year prior to their death. This presents an opportunity for suicide prevention by strategically training healthcare students in suicide prevention knowledge and skills. The objective of this scoping review is to identify literature that describes the design, development, implementation and/or evaluation of suicide prevention training for healthcare and/or social care students in higher education settings. Studies will only be considered eligible for inclusion if they describe the design, development, implementation and/or evaluation of suicide prevention curricula being delivered to healthcare or social care degree students in higher education. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies published between 2011 and 2023 (inclusive) and in the English language will be considered eligible. This scoping review will be conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The developed search strategy will be implemented across six databases: PubMed, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. Several grey literature sources will also be consulted. Further potential results will be located by hand-searching the reference lists of included articles. The search strategy will include variations of the terms: 'student', 'suicide prevention' and 'education'. The search will be limited to titles, abstracts, and keywords in databases that allow it. Two reviewers will complete the screening using the predefined inclusion criteria. A third reviewer will resolve any conflicts during the screening and eligibility appraisal processes. Results will be presented in the form of tabulated results and an accompanying narrative summary, describing key findings and context related to learning outcomes, methodologies employed and implementation of the identified programmes.