A new primary dental care service compared with standard care for child and family to reduce the re-occurrence of childhood dental caries (Dental RECUR): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: In England and Scotland, dental extraction is the single highest cause of planned admission to the hospital for children under 11 years. Traditional dental services have had limited success in reducing this disease burden. Interventions based on motivational interviewing have been shown to impact positively dental health behaviours and could facilitate the prevention of re-occurrence of dental caries in this high-risk population. The objective of the study is to evaluate whether a new, dental nurse-led service, delivered using a brief negotiated interview based on motivational interviewing, is a more cost-effective service than treatment as usual, in reducing the re-occurrence of dental decay in young children with previous dental extractions. Methods/Design: This 2-year, two-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will include 224 child participants, initially aged 5 to 7 years, who are scheduled to have one or more primary teeth extracted for dental caries under general anaesthesia (GA), relative analgesia (RA: inhalation sedation) or local anaesthesia (LA). The trial will be conducted in University Dental Hospitals, Secondary Care Centres or other providers of dental extraction services across the United Kingdom. The intervention will include a brief negotiated interview (based on the principles of motivational interviewing) delivered between enrolment and 6 weeks post-extraction, followed by directed prevention in primary dental care. Participants will be followed up for 2 years. The main outcome measure will be the dental caries experienced by 2 years post-enrolment at the level of dentine involvement on any tooth in either dentition, which had been caries-free at the baseline assessment. Discussion: The participants are a hard-to-reach group in which secondary prevention is a challenge. Lack of engagement with dental care makes the children and their families scheduled for extraction particularly difficult to recruit to an RCT. Variations in service delivery between sites have also added to the challenges in implementing the Dental RECUR protocol during the recruitment phase. Trial registration: ISRCTN24958829 (date of registration: 27 September 2013), Current protocol version: 5.0

Disparities in Healthy Food Zoning, Farmers\u27 Market Availability, and Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among North Carolina Residents

Background: Context and purpose of the study. To examine (1) associations between county-level zoning to support farmers\u27 market placement and county-level farmers\u27 market availability, rural/urban designation, percent African American residents, and percent of residents living below poverty and (2) individual-level associations between zoning to support farmers\u27 markets; fruit and vegetable consumption and body mass index (BMI) among a random sample of residents of six North Carolina (NC) counties. Methods: Zoning ordinances were scored to indicate supportiveness for healthy food outlets. Number of farmers\u27 markets (per capita) was obtained from the NC-Community Transformation Grant Project Fruit and Vegetable Outlet Inventory (2013). County-level census data on rural/urban status, percent African American, and percent poverty were obtained. For data on farmers\u27 market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI, trained interviewers conducted a random digit dial telephone survey of residents of six NC counties (3 urban and 3 rural). Pearson correlation coefficients and multilevel linear regression models were used to examine county-level and individual-level associations between zoning supportiveness, farmers\u27 market availability, and fruit and vegetable consumption and BMI. Results: At the county-level, healthier food zoning was greater in more urban areas and areas with less poverty. At the individual-level, self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with healthier food zoning. Conclusions: Disparities in zoning to promote healthy eating should be further examined, and future studies should assess whether amending zoning ordinances will lead to greater availability of healthy foods and changes in dietary behavior and health outcomes

Farmers’ market shopping and dietary behaviours among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants

Abstract Objective Because farmers’ markets include a variety of fruits and vegetables, shopping at farmers’ markets would likely improve diet quality among low-income consumers, as well as promote sustainable direct farm-to-consumer business models. However, not much is known about how to promote farmers’ market shopping among low-income consumers. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper was to examine barriers to and facilitators of shopping at farmers’ markets and associations between shopping at farmers’ markets and self-reported dietary behaviours (fruit and vegetable, sugar-sweetened beverage and fast-food consumption) and BMI. Design Cross-sectional analyses of associations between farmers’ market shopping frequency, awareness of markets, access to markets, dietary behaviours and BMI. Setting Department of Social Services, Pitt County, eastern North Carolina, USA. Subjects Between April and July 2013, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants ( n 205) completed a quantitative survey. Results Barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets included does not accept SNAP/electronic benefit transfer, out of the way and lack of transportation. Farmers’ market shopping was associated with awareness of farmers’ markets (estimate =0·18 ( se 0·04), P <0·001). Fruit and vegetable consumption was positively associated with farmers’ market shopping (estimate =1·06 ( se 0·32), P =0·001). Conclusions Our study is one of the first to examine SNAP participants’ farmers’ market shopping, distance to farmers’ markets and dietary behaviours. Barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets and increasing awareness of existing markets should be addressed in future interventions to increase SNAP participants’ use of farmers’ markets, ultimately improving diet quality in this high-risk group

Farmers' Market Shopping and Dietary Behaviours Among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participants

Abstract Objective Because farmers’ markets include a variety of fruits and vegetables, shopping at farmers’ markets would likely improve diet quality among low-income consumers, as well as promote sustainable direct farm-to-consumer business models. However, not much is known about how to promote farmers’ market shopping among low-income consumers. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper was to examine barriers to and facilitators of shopping at farmers’ markets and associations between shopping at farmers’ markets and self-reported dietary behaviours (fruit and vegetable, sugar-sweetened beverage and fast-food consumption) and BMI. Design Cross-sectional analyses of associations between farmers’ market shopping frequency, awareness of markets, access to markets, dietary behaviours and BMI. Setting Department of Social Services, Pitt County, eastern North Carolina, USA. Subjects Between April and July 2013, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants ( n 205) completed a quantitative survey. Results Barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets included does not accept SNAP/electronic benefit transfer, out of the way and lack of transportation. Farmers’ market shopping was associated with awareness of farmers’ markets (estimate =0·18 ( se 0·04), P <0·001). Fruit and vegetable consumption was positively associated with farmers’ market shopping (estimate =1·06 ( se 0·32), P =0·001). Conclusions Our study is one of the first to examine SNAP participants’ farmers’ market shopping, distance to farmers’ markets and dietary behaviours. Barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets and increasing awareness of existing markets should be addressed in future interventions to increase SNAP participants’ use of farmers’ markets, ultimately improving diet quality in this high-risk group

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

OhioLINK Electronic Journal Use at Ohio State University

A five-question survey, randomly presented to users at Ohio State University (OSU) as they viewed articles in OhioLINK's Electronic Journal Center (EJC) in fall 2002, probed the user's status, academic unit, reason for viewing, path to the article, and frequency of EJC use. Usage by faculty and graduate students, frequent users, and by those in the sciences predominated, as did usage for a class assignment and browsing a journal's issues. OSU polls in 2003 and 2004 probed EJC awareness and actions after viewing articles. Half of undergraduates were non-users. Printing was favored over reading entire articles online.Battelle Endowment for Technology and Human Affairs, OhioLINK, and the OSU Center for Survey Research