The Impact of War Trauma and Housing Environment on Mental Wellbeing of Syrian Refugees in Jordan: A Comparison between In-Camp and Urban Populations.

The aim of this study is to compare mental wellbeing and levels of post-trauma distress between Syrian refugees who live inside camps and those who live outside camps in Jordan through a survey-based cross-sectional design, where data were collected from 240 adult Syrian refugees in Jordan. The Arabic versions of the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF), and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) were used to quantitatively measure variables through descriptive statistics and multiple comparative analysis tests. Despite having no significant correlation with residence, findings of the MHC-SF showed significance for mental wellbeing with employment status and income. Whereas IES-R showed that camp refugees fared significantly better in terms of trauma effect than urban refugees. It can be concluded that Syrian refugees living inside camps were disadvantaged in terms of mental wellbeing but slightly less affected by war in comparison to those living in urban areas. Improved programs and policies are needed to uplift the mental wellbeing of Syrian refugees in Jordan and to minimize the destructive traumatic effects of the Syrian war on their wellness.

Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials assess intervention effects on specific patient subgroups, ensuring generalizability. However, they are usually only able to generate hypotheses rather than definitive conclusions. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of post hoc subgroup analysis in oncology. METHODS: We systematically reviewed published subgroup analyses from 2000 to 2022. We included articles presenting secondary, post hoc, or subgroup analyses of interventional clinical trials in oncology, cancer survivorship, or cancer screening, published separately from the original clinical trial publication. We collected cancer type, year of publication, where and how subgroup analyses were reported, and funding. RESULTS: Out of 16 487 screened publications, 1612 studies were included, primarily subgroup analyses of treatment trials for solid tumors (82%). Medical writers contributed to 31% of articles, and 58% of articles reported conflicts of interest. Subgroup analyses increased significantly over time, with 695 published between 2019 and 2022, compared to 384 from 2000 to 2014. Gastrointestinal tumors (25%) and lymphoid lineage tumors (39%) were the most frequently studied solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. Industry funding and reporting of conflicts of interest increased over time. Subgroup analyses often neglected to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Most authors were from high-income countries, most commonly North America (45%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the rapidly growing use of post hoc subgroup analysis of oncology clinical trials, revealing that the majority are supported by pharmaceutical companies, and they frequently fail to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Given the known methodological limitations of subgroup analyses, caution is recommended among authors, readers, and reviewers when conducting and interpreting these studies.

Attitudes towards COVID-19 Booster Vaccines, Vaccine Preferences, Child Immunization, and Recent Issues in Vaccination among University Students in Jordan.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been available in Jordan for more than a year, Jordan suffers from a low vaccination rate. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes towards recent issues in vaccination among university students in Jordan. We adopted a cross sectional study design using an online questionnaire distributed in a Jordanian university with a medical school chosen at random. The survey asked about COVID-19 vaccine preferences, factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine preferences, child vaccination, and booster vaccines. A total of 417 students completed the survey. Most respondents (54.7%) preferred the Pfizer vaccine, and 6.2% refused to take any vaccine. Pfizer's efficacy against new strains is a main factor in preferring Pfizer over other vaccines (p < 0.01). Most respondents (71%) believed that vaccination is crucial to prevent COVID-19 surges from new COVID-19 strains, while 44.6% of respondents believed that children should be included in vaccination campaigns, and 70% believed that booster vaccines required more studies to prove their efficacy. Students had mixed attitudes towards many recent issues concerning COVID-19 vaccination. Studying these factors and attitudes in more depth and in different populations can pave the way towards improving vaccination rates worldwide.