Research Priorities for Studies Linking Intake of Low-Calorie Sweeteners and Potentially Related Health Outcomes: Research Methodology and Study Design.

Background: In a world of finite research funding, efforts to prioritize future research topics are increasingly necessary. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the direction of future research in the broad area of low-calorie sweetener (LCS) intake and potentially related health outcomes by using a novel method that incorporates evidence mapping in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Future Research Needs (FRN) process. Methods: A diverse expert stakeholder panel was convened and engaged to identify research gaps and prioritize future research needs. An independent research team hosted a number of interactive webinars and elicited feedback through surveys and individual interviews with the stakeholder panel, which included policymakers, lay audience members, health providers, a research funder, individuals with food industry experience, and researchers of several different specialties. Results: The stakeholder panel generated and ranked a list of 18 FRN questions across 5 broad research areas. Overall, stakeholder panel members unanimously agreed that the research questions that will have the largest public health impact are those that address outcomes related to body weight, appetite, and dietary intake. Although the LCSs included in this FRN project have all been Generally Recognized as Safe by the FDA or approved as food additives, the recurrent concerns and confusions with regard to the "safety" of LCSs by consumers underscore the importance of communicating the science to the general public. Conclusion: Our project provides evidence that engaging a diverse expert stakeholder panel is an effective method of translating gaps in nutrition research into prioritized areas of future research.

Choice architecture to promote fruit and vegetable purchases by families participating in the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): randomized corner store pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot study to determine if improving the visibility and quality of fresh produce (choice architecture) in corner stores would increase fruit/vegetable purchases by families participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). DESIGN: Six stores were randomly assigned to choice architecture intervention or control. Store-level WIC sales data were provided by the state. Primary outcomes were WIC fruit/vegetable voucher and non-fruit/vegetable voucher sales, comparing trends from baseline (December 2012-October 2013) with the five-month intervention period (December 2013-April 2014). Secondary outcomes were differences in customer self-reported fruit/vegetable purchases between baseline and end of the intervention. SETTING: Chelsea, MA, USA, a low-income urban community. SUBJECTS: Adult customers (n 575) completing store exit interviews. RESULTS: During baseline, WIC fruit/vegetable and non-fruit/vegetable sales decreased in both intervention and control stores by $US 16/month. During the intervention period, WIC fruit/vegetable sales increased in intervention stores by $US 40/month but decreased in control stores by $US 23/month (difference in trends: $US 63/month; 95 % CI 4, 121 $US/month; P=0·036); WIC non-fruit/vegetable sales were not different (P=0·45). Comparing baseline and intervention-period exit interview responses by customers participating in WIC (n 134), intervention store customers reported increased fruit/vegetable purchases compared with control store customers (18 v. -2 %), but this did not achieve statistical significance (P=0·11). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of fruits/vegetables near the front of corner stores increased purchase of produce by customers using WIC. New policies that incentivize stores to stock and prominently display good-quality produce could promote healthier food choices of low-income families.

Creating a literature database of low-calorie sweeteners and health studies: evidence mapping.

BACKGROUND: Evidence mapping is an emerging tool used to systematically identify, organize and summarize the quantity and focus of scientific evidence on a broad topic, but there are currently no methodological standards. Using the topic of low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) and selected health outcomes, we describe the process of creating an evidence-map database and demonstrate several example descriptive analyses using this database. METHODS: The process of creating an evidence-map database is described in detail. The steps include: developing a comprehensive literature search strategy, establishing study eligibility criteria and a systematic study selection process, extracting data, developing outcome groups with input from expert stakeholders and tabulating data using descriptive analyses. The database was uploaded onto SRDR™ (Systematic Review Data Repository), an open public data repository. RESULTS: Our final LCS evidence-map database included 225 studies, of which 208 were interventional studies and 17 were cohort studies. An example bubble plot was produced to display the evidence-map data and visualize research gaps according to four parameters: comparison types, population baseline health status, outcome groups, and study sample size. This plot indicated a lack of studies assessing appetite and dietary intake related outcomes using LCS with a sugar intake comparison in people with diabetes. CONCLUSION: Evidence mapping is an important tool for the contextualization of in-depth systematic reviews within broader literature and identifies gaps in the evidence base, which can be used to inform future research. An open evidence-map database has the potential to promote knowledge translation from nutrition science to policy.

Developing Community-Level Policy and Practice to Reduce Traffic-Related Air Pollution Exposure.

The literature consistently shows associations of adverse cardiovascular and pulmonary outcomes with residential proximity to highways and major roadways. Air monitoring shows that traffic-related pollutants (TRAP) are elevated within 200-400 m of these roads. Community-level tactics for reducing exposure include the following: 1) HEPA filtration; 2) Appropriate air-intake locations; 3) Sound proofing, insulation and other features; 4) Land-use buffers; 5) Vegetation or wall barriers; 6) Street-side trees, hedges and vegetation; 7) Decking over highways; 8) Urban design including placement of buildings; 9) Garden and park locations; and 10) Active travel locations, including bicycling and walking paths. A multidisciplinary design charrette was held to test the feasibility of incorporating these tactics into near-highway housing and school developments that were in the planning stages. The resulting designs successfully utilized many of the protective tactics and also led to engagement with the designers and developers of the sites. There is a need to increase awareness of TRAP in terms of building design and urban planning.

Material need insecurities, control of diabetes mellitus, and use of health care resources: results of the Measuring Economic Insecurity in Diabetes study.

IMPORTANCE: Increasing access to care may be insufficient to improve the health of patients with diabetes mellitus and unmet basic needs (hereinafter referred to as material need insecurities). How specific material need insecurities relate to clinical outcomes and the use of health care resources in a setting of near-universal access to health care is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of food insecurity, cost-related medication underuse, housing instability, and energy insecurity with control of diabetes mellitus and the use of health care resources. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data were collected from June 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013, at 1 academic primary care clinic, 2 community health centers, and 1 specialty center for the treatment of diabetes mellitus in Massachusetts. A random sample of 411 patients, stratified by clinic, consisted of adults (aged ≥21 years) with diabetes mellitus (response rate, 62.3%). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was a composite indicator of poor diabetes control (hemoglobin A1c level, >9.0%; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, >100 mg/dL; or blood pressure, >140/90 mm Hg). Prespecified secondary outcomes included outpatient visits and a composite of emergency department (ED) visits and acute care hospitalizations (ED/inpatient visits). RESULTS: Overall, 19.1% of respondents reported food insecurity; 27.6%, cost-related medication underuse; 10.7%, housing instability; 14.1%, energy insecurity; and 39.1%, at least 1 material need insecurity. Poor diabetes control was observed in 46.0% of respondents. In multivariable models, food insecurity was associated with a greater odds of poor diabetes control (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.97 [95% CI, 1.58-2.47]) and increased outpatient visits (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05-1.36]) but not increased ED/inpatient visits (IRR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.51-1.97]). Cost-related medication underuse was associated with poor diabetes control (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.35-2.70]) and increased ED/inpatient visits (IRR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.21-2.34]) but not outpatient visits (IRR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.95-1.21]). Housing instability (IRR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.14-1.51]) and energy insecurity (IRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.25]) were associated with increased outpatient visits but not with diabetes control (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.60-2.02] and OR, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.96-1.69], respectively) or with ED/inpatient visits (IRR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.81-2.73] and IRR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.80-2.13], respectively). An increasing number of insecurities was associated with poor diabetes control (OR for each additional need, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.18-1.63]) and increased use of health care resources (IRR for outpatient visits, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; IRR for ED/inpatient visits, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.99-1.51]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Material need insecurities were common among patients with diabetes mellitus and had varying but generally adverse associations with diabetes control and the use of health care resources. Material need insecurities may be important targets for improving care of diabetes mellitus.