Community-engaged randomised controlled trial to disseminate COVID-19 vaccine-related information and increase uptake among Black individuals in two US cities with rheumatic conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Inequities in COVID-19 infection and vaccine uptake among historically marginalised racial and ethnic groups in the USA persist. Individuals with rheumatic conditions, especially those who are immunocompromised, are especially vulnerable to severe infection, with significant racialised inequities in infection outcomes and in vaccine uptake. Structural racism, historical injustices and misinformation engender racial and ethnic inequities in vaccine uptake. The Popular Opinion Lleader (POL) model, a community-based intervention that trains trusted community leaders to disseminate health information to their social network members (eg, friends, family and neighbours), has been shown to reduce stigma and improve care-seeking behaviours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a community-based cluster randomised controlled trial led by a team of community and academic partners to compare the efficacy of training POLs with rheumatic or musculoskeletal conditions using a curriculum embedded with a racial justice vs a biomedical framework to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reduce vaccine hesitancy. This trial began recruitment in February 2024 in Boston, Massachusetts and Chicago, Illinois, USA. Eligible POLs are English-speaking adults who identify as Black and/or of African descent, have a diagnosis of a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and have received >=1 COVID-19 vaccine after 31 August 2022. POLs will be randomised to a 6-module virtual educational training; the COVID-19 and vaccine-related content will be the same for both groups however the framing for arm 1 will be with a racial justice lens and for arm 2, a biomedical preventative care-focused lens. Following the training, POLs will disseminate the information they learned to 12-16 social network members who have not received the most recent COVID-19 vaccine, over 4 weeks. The trial's primary outcome is social network member COVID-19 vaccine uptake, which will be compared between intervention arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has ethical approval in the USA. This has been approved by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board (IRB, 2023P000686), the Northwestern University IRB (STU00219053), the Boston University/Boston Medical Center IRB (H-43857) and the Boston Children's Hospital IRB (P00045404). Results will be published in a publicly accessible peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05822219.

Peripartum interventions for people with class III obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify evidence-based peripartum interventions for people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 2022 without date, publication type, or language restrictions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cohort and randomized controlled trials that implemented an intervention and evaluated peripartum outcomes of people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2 were included. The primary outcome depended on the intervention but was commonly related to wound morbidity after cesarean delivery (ie, infection, separation, hematoma). METHODS: Meta-analysis was completed for interventions with at least 2 studies. Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and heterogeneity (I2 statistics) were reported. RESULTS: Of 20,301 studies screened, 30 studies (17 cohort and 13 randomized controlled trials) encompassing 10 types of interventions were included. The interventions included delivery planning (induction of labor, planned cesarean delivery), antibiotics during labor induction or for surgical prophylaxis, 6 types of cesarean delivery techniques, and anticoagulation dosing after a cesarean delivery. Planned cesarean delivery compared with planned vaginal delivery did not improve outcomes according to 3 cohort studies. One cohort study compared 3 g with 2 g of cephazolin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery and found no differences in surgical site infections. According to 3 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials, there was no improvement in outcomes with a non-low transverse skin incision. Ten studies (4 cohort and 6 randomized controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Two randomized controlled trials compared subcuticular closure with suture vs staples after cesarean delivery and found no differences in wound morbidity within 6 weeks of cesarean delivery (n=422; risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.59; I2=9%). Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy was compared with standard dressing in 4 cohort and 4 randomized controlled trials, which found no differences in wound morbidity (cohort n=2200; risk ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.63; I2=66.1%) or surgical site infections (randomized controlled trial n=1262; risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.29; I2=0). CONCLUSION: Few studies address interventions in people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, and most studies did not demonstrate a benefit. Either staples or suture are recommended for subcuticular closure, but available data do not support prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean delivery for people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2.

Colorism attitudes and use of skin lightening agents in the United States.

Skin lightening (SL) is a practice involving the use of chemicals to lighten the skin that is more common among skin of color (SOC) individuals, particularly women, and can lead to adverse health consequences. Objective: In this study, we examine SL habits, including both general lightening and lightening for the treatment of a skin condition, among SOC individuals in the United States and the role of colorism in motivating these behaviors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to SOC individuals through ResearchMatch, an online national health registry. Demographics, rates of SL, SL habits, and perceived colorism among SL users and nonusers were collected and analyzed with χ2, Fisher's exact, Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Spearman correlation, and t tests. Results: A total of 455 participants completed the survey. Ninety-seven participants (21.3%) reported using SL agents: 73.2% (71/97) used SL agents for the treatment of a skin condition and 26.8% (26/97) used the products for general SL. Only 22.6% (22/97) of SL users consulted a medical provider before using the products. Forty-four participants (45.4%) were unaware of their SL product ingredients, and 35.1% (34/97) reported using hydroquinone-based products. Composite colorism scores were significantly higher in SL users than nonusers (20.03 vs 18.20; P < .001). Limitations: This study used self-reported racial/ethnic groups to characterize those with SOC rather than assessing actual skin tones of participants, which could have led to variability. Conclusion: SL among SOC individuals is prevalent in the U.S. and poses a health risk, as many SL users are unaware of product ingredients, do not consult a medical provider before use, and have access to potentially unsafe formulations. Dermatologists should address skin tone and pigmentary concerns with their SOC patients.