Asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives on the burden and management of asthma: Post-hoc analysis of APPaRENT 1 and 2 to assess predictors of treatment adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Patient adherence to maintenance medication is critical for improving clinical outcomes in asthma and is a recommended guiding factor for treatment strategy. Previously, the APPaRENT studies assessed patient and physician perspectives on asthma care; here, a post-hoc analysis aimed to identify patient factors associated with good adherence and treatment prescription patterns. METHODS: APPaRENT 1 and 2 were cross-sectional online surveys of 2866 adults with asthma and 1883 physicians across Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Mexico, and the Philippines in 2020-2021. Combined data assessed adherence to maintenance medication, treatment goals, use of asthma action plans, and physician treatment patterns and preferences. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between patient characteristics and both treatment prescription (by physicians) and patient treatment adherence. RESULTS: Patient and physician assessments of treatment goals and adherence differed, as did reporting of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions alongside maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Older age and greater patient-reported severity and reliever use were associated with better adherence. Patient-reported prescription of SABA with MART was associated with household smoking, severe or poorly controlled asthma, and living in China or the Philippines. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed an important disconnect between patient and physician treatment goals and treatment adherence, suggesting that strategies for improving patient adherence to maintenance medication are needed, focusing on younger patients with milder disease. High reliever use despite good adherence may indicate poor disease control. Personalised care considering patient characteristics alongside physician training in motivational communication and shared decision-making could improve patient management and outcomes.

A randomized 3-month, parallel-group, controlled trial of CALMA m-health app as an adjunct to therapy to reduce suicidal and non-suicidal self-injurious behaviors in adolescents: study protocol.

Background: Suicidal and non-suicidal self-injurious behaviors are among the leading causes of death and injury in adolescents and youth worldwide. Mobile app development could help people at risk and provide resources to deliver evidence-based interventions. There is no specific application for adolescents and young people available in Spanish. Our group developed CALMA, the first interactive mobile application with the user in Spanish, which provides tools based on Dialectical Behavioral Therapy to manage a crisis of suicidal or non-suicidal self-directed violence with the aim of preventing suicide in adolescents and youth. Methods: To test the effectiveness, safety and level of engagement of the CALMA app in people aged 10 to 19 who are treated in mental health services of two public hospitals, we will conduct a parallel-group, two-arm randomized controlled trial. Participants will be assessed face-to-face and via video call at four timepoints: day-0 (baseline), day-30, day-60, and day-90. A total of 29 participants per group will be included. Change in the frequency of suicidal and non-suicidal self-injurious behaviors will be compared between groups, as well as the level of emotional dysregulation, level of app engagement and time of psychiatric admission during the follow-up period. Discussion: This study is particularly relevant to young people given their widespread use of mobile technology, while there are currently no available smartphone app-based self-guided psychological strategies in Spanish that attempt to reduce suicidal behavior in adolescents who are assisted in the public health sector from low and middle-income countries in Latin America. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT05453370.

Methods to assess ambivalence towards food and diet: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Ambivalence towards food and diet, which favours behavioural inertia, might be a barrier to adopting healthier eating behaviours. Measuring it can help researchers to better understand its relationship with behaviour change and design interventions aimed at resolving it. In this scoping review, we map and describe methods and tools employed in studies to assess, measure or classify the ambivalence of participants towards food- and diet-related attitude objects. METHODS: In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we retrieved peer-reviewed studies from MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, FSTA and Food Science Source and preprints from PsyArXiv and MedRxiv. Two independent reviewers screened the articles. We considered for inclusion peer-reviewed studies and preprints that assessed the ambivalence of participants of any age, sex or sociodemographic group towards food and diet. RESULTS: We included 45 studies published between 1992 and 2022, which included participants from 17 countries. Eighteen methods were employed across the included studies to assess different types of ambivalence (felt, potential or cognitive-affective), the most frequent of which were the Griffin Index, the Subjective Ambivalence Questionnaire, the MouseTracker Paradigm and the Orientation to Chocolate Questionnaire. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified several methods and tools to assess different types of ambivalence towards food- and diet-related objects, providing an array of options for future studies.

Methods to assess ambivalence toward food and diet: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify and understand the different tools and methods used in studies in the field of human eating behavior to assess, measure, or classify participants' ambivalence toward food and diet, as well as to identify which tools and methods are most frequently employed. INTRODUCTION: People's attitudes toward food and eating behaviors are often ambivalent (simultaneously positive and negative), making it harder to change eating behaviors in favor of a healthier diet. This highlights the importance of resolving diet-related ambivalence. Identifying and understanding the different methods used in the literature to assess attitudinal ambivalence toward food and diet will provide researchers with a range of options to choose from for future studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include peer-reviewed studies as well as preprints that assess the ambivalence of human participants toward food and diet, regardless of sex, age, or other sociodemographic factors. We will exclude studies in which the methods used to assess ambivalence are not detailed or cannot be reproduced, as well as studies that assess the ambivalence of participants toward farming and agricultural methods or toward methods of food production and preparation. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Peer-reviewed studies will be retrieved from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Food Science Source, FSTA, and CINAHL, while preprints will be retrieved from PsyArXiv and MedArXiv. Two independent reviewers will screen the articles. All relevant extracted information will be presented as tables and a descriptive summary of the findings.

COVID-19 Is Not the Flu: Four Graphs From Four Countries.

Background: COVID-19 has caused a global public health emergency. Government mitigation strategies included a series of behavior-based prevention policies that had a likely impact on the spread of other contagious respiratory illnesses, such as seasonal influenza. Our aim was to explore how 2019-2020 influenza tracked onto COVID-19 pandemic and its mitigation methods. Materials and Methods: We linked the WHO FluNet database and COVID-19 confirmed cases (Johns Hopkins University) for four countries across the northern (Canada, the United States) and southern hemispheres (Australia, Brazil) for the period 2016-2020. Graphical presentations of longitudinal data were provided. Results: There was a notable reduction in influenza cases for the 2019-2020 season. Northern hemisphere countries experienced a quicker ending to the 2019-2020 seasonal influenza cases (shortened by 4-7 weeks) and virtually no 2020 fall influenza season. Countries from the southern hemisphere experienced drastically low levels of seasonal influenza, with consistent trends that were approaching zero cases after the introduction of COVID-19 measures. Conclusions: It is likely that the COVID-19 mitigation measures played a notable role in the marked decrease in influenza, with little to no influenza activity in both the northern and southern hemispheres. In spite of this reduction in influenza cases, there was still community spread of COVID-19, highlighting the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2 compared to influenza. These results, together with the higher mortality rate from SARS-CoV-2 compared to influenza, highlight that COVID-19 is a far greater health threat than influenza.