The mediating effect of subject well-being between physical activity and the internet addiction of college students in China during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Internet addiction poses a significant threat to the health of college students worldwide, but physical activity, as a highly safe and effective rehabilitative measure, has shown promise for alleviating this issue nowadays. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the mediating processes in this association remained unclear. This study aims to explore the impact of physical activity on internet addiction among college students and the mediating role of subjective well-being. Methods: A survey was conducted on 216 eligible college students using the physical activity level scale, the internet addiction test, and the subjective well-being scale. For data analysis, independent sample t-tests, correlation analysis, hierarchical regression analysis, and mediating effect tests were in turn carried out in this work. Results: The study revealed noteworthy gender disparities in physical activity and internet addiction among college students (ß = -0.356, p < 0.01; ß = 0.140, p < 0.05). Compared to females, male students manifest elevated levels of physical activity and lower scores in internet addiction. Physical activity and subjective well-being exerted a significantly negative predictive influence on internet addiction (ß = -0.162, p < 0.05; ß = -0.508, p < 0.001). What's more, subjective well-being assumed a crucial mediating role in the relationship between physical activity and internet addiction, with the mediating effect accounting for 72.81% of the total effect. Conclusion: This study deepens the understanding of how physical activity reduces internet addiction risk while emphasizing that enhancing subjective well-being is an effective strategy for college students to cope with Internet addiction.

A Better Antiviral Efficacy Found in Nucleos(t)ide Analog (NA) Combinations with Interferon Therapy than NA Monotherapy for HBeAg Positive Chronic Hepatitis B: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) combined with interferon (IFN) therapy vs. NAs monotherapy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remains inconclusive. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether the NAs plus IFN regimen offers synergistic efficacy that justifies the cost and burden of such a combination therapy in CHB patients. METHODS: Related publications covering the period of 1966 to July 2014 were identified through searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, WANFANG, and CNKI database. A total of 17 studies were enrolled, including 6 in English and 11 in Chinese. Then, we established a final list of studies for the meta-analysis by systematically grading the quality and eligibility of the identified individual studies. We used hepatitis B antigen (HBeAg) loss, HBV-DNA undetectable rate, HBeAg seroconversion, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss, HBsAg seroconversion, and histological score at the end of treatment for efficacy evaluation. A quantitative meta-analysis (Review Manager, Version 5.1.0) was performed to assess the differences between NAs and IFN combination therapy and NAs monotherapy. RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrated that HBeAg loss (RR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.32-2.26, p < 0.001), HBV-DNA undetectable rate (RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.22-2.04, p < 0.001), HBeAg seroconversion (RR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.36-2.07, p < 0.001), and HBsAg loss (RR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.32-4.75, p < 0.001) in the combination therapy group were significantly higher than those in the monotherapy group. However, there were no significant differences in HBsAg seroconversion (RR = 4.25, 95% CI = 0.62-29.13, p = 0.14), sustained virological response rates, and biochemical response rates observed between the two groups. The results showed that the combination therapy group had more improved HBV histology than the NAs monotherapy group (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.93-1.39, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: NAs and IFN or Peg-IFN combination therapy had a better efficacy in terms of HBeAg loss, HBV-DNA undetectable rate, HBeAg seroconversion, and HBsAg loss, compared to the NA monotherapy group at the end of treatment; however, there was no significant difference in HBsAg seroconversion between the two regimens.