Tobacco Smoking Using Midwakh Is an Emerging Health Problem – Evidence from a Large Cross-Sectional Survey in the United Arab Emirates

INTRODUCTION: Accurate information about the prevalence and types of tobacco use is essential to deliver effective public health policy. We aimed to study the prevalence and modes of tobacco consumption in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), particularly focusing on the use of Midwakh (Arabic traditional pipe). METHODS: We studied 170,430 UAE nationals aged ≥ 18 years (44% males and 56% females) in the Weqaya population-based screening program in Abu Dhabi residents during the period April 2008-June 2010. Self-reported smoking status, type, quantity and duration of tobacco smoked were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study findings; prevalence rates used the screened sample as the denominator. RESULT: The prevalence of smoking overall was 24.3% in males and 0.8% in females and highest in males aged 20-39. Mean age (SD) of smokers was 32.8 (11.1) years, 32.7 (11.1) in males and 35.7 (12.1) in females. Cigarette smoking was the commonest form of tobacco use (77.4% of smokers), followed by Midwakh (15.0%), shisha (waterpipe) (6.8%), and cigar (0.66%). The mean durations of smoking for cigarettes, Midwakh, shisha and cigars were 11.4, 9.3, 7.6 and 11.0 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking is most common among younger UAE national men. The use of Midwakh and the relatively young age of onset of Midwakh smokers is of particular concern as is the possibility of the habit spreading to other countries. Comprehensive tobacco control laws targeting the young and the use of Midwakh are needed

The prevalence of waterpipe tobacco smoking among the general and specific populations: a systematic review

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to systematically review the medical literature for the prevalence of waterpipe tobacco use among the general and specific populations. Methods We electronically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the ISI the Web of Science. We selected studies using a two-stage duplicate and independent screening process. We included cohort studies and cross sectional studies assessing the prevalence of use of waterpipe in either the general population or a specific population of interest. Two reviewers used a standardized and pilot tested form to collect data from each eligible study using a duplicate and independent screening process. We stratified the data analysis by country and by age group. The study was not restricted to a specific context. Results Of a total of 38 studies, only 4 were national surveys; the rest assessed specific populations. The highest prevalence of current waterpipe smoking was among school students across countries: the United States, especially among Arab Americans (12%-15%) the Arabic Gulf region (9%-16%), Estonia (21%), and Lebanon (25%). Similarly, the prevalence of current waterpipe smoking among university students was high in the Arabic Gulf region (6%), the United Kingdom (8%), the United States (10%), Syria (15%), Lebanon (28%), and Pakistan (33%). The prevalence of current waterpipe smoking among adults was the following: Pakistan (6%), Arabic Gulf region (4%-12%), Australia (11% in Arab speaking adults), Syria (9%-12%), and Lebanon (15%). Group waterpipe smoking was high in Lebanon (5%), and Egypt (11%-15%). In Lebanon, 5%-6% pregnant women reported smoking waterpipe during pregnancy. The studies were all cross-sectional and varied by how they reported waterpipe smoking. Conclusion While very few national surveys have been conducted, the prevalence of waterpipe smoking appears to be alarmingly high among school students and university students in Middle Eastern countries and among groups of Middle Eastern descent in Western countries

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review

Objectives: To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. Design: Policy mapping and systematic review. Data sources and Eligibility Criteria: for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results: Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies.Peer Reviewe

Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: The clinician's perspective

This article deals with the problem of interpreting health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes in clinical trials. First, we will briefly describe how dichotomization and item response theory can facilitate interpretation. Based on examples from the medical literature for the interpretation of HRQL scores we will show that dichotomies may help clinicians understand information provided by HRQL instruments in RCTs. They can choose thresholds to calculate proportions of patients benefiting based on absolute scores or change scores. For example, clinicians interpreting clinical trial results could consider the difference in the proportion of patients who achieve a mean score of 50 before and after an intervention on a scale from 1 to 100. For the change score approach, they could consider the proportion of patients who have changed by a score of 5 or more. Finally, they can calculate the proportion of patients benefiting and transform these numbers into a number needed to treat or natural frequencies. Second, we will describe in more detail an approach to the interpretation of HRQL scores based on the minimal important difference (MID) and proportions. The MID is the smallest difference in score in the outcome of interest that informed patients or informed proxies perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful, and that would lead the patient or clinician to consider a change in the management. Any change in management will depend on the downsides, including cost and inconvenience, associated with the intervention. Investigators can help with the interpretation of HRQL scores by determining the MID of an HRQL instrument and provide mean differences in relation to the MID. For instance, for an MID of 0.5 on a seven point scale investigators could provide the mean change on the instrument as well as the proportion of patients with scores greater than the MID. Thus, there are several steps investigators can take to facilitate this process to help bringing HRQL information closer to the bedside

The disruption of proteostasis in neurodegenerative diseases

Cells count on surveillance systems to monitor and protect the cellular proteome which, besides being highly heterogeneous, is constantly being challenged by intrinsic and environmental factors. In this context, the proteostasis network (PN) is essential to achieve a stable and functional proteome. Disruption of the PN is associated with aging and can lead to and/or potentiate the occurrence of many neurodegenerative diseases (ND). This not only emphasizes the importance of the PN in health span and aging but also how its modulation can be a potential target for intervention and treatment of human diseases.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Waterpipe tobacco use in the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional study among university students and stop smoking practitioners

© 2016 Jawad et al.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Introduction: Despite cigarette-like adverse health outcomes associated with waterpipe tobacco smoking and increase in its use among youth, it is a much underexplored research area. We aimed to measure the prevalence and patterns of waterpipe tobacco use and evaluate tobacco control policy with respect to waterpipe tobacco, in several universities across the UK. We also aimed to measure stop smoking practitioners' encounter of waterpipe tobacco smoking. Methods: We distributed an online survey to six UK universities, asking detailed questions on waterpipe tobacco. Multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, graduate status, university and socioeconomic status (SES) assessed associations between waterpipe tobacco smoking (single use and dual use with cigarettes) and sociodemographic variables. SES was ascertained by average weekly self-spend on non-essentials. We also descriptively analysed data from a 2012 survey of stop smoking practitioners to assess the proportion of clients that used waterpipe regularly. Results: f 2217 student responses, 66.0%(95% CI 63.9-68.0%) had tried waterpipe tobacco smoking; 14.3%(95% CI 12.8-15.8%) reported past-30 day use, and 8.7% (95% CI 7.6-9.9%) reported at least monthly users. Past-30 day waterpipe-only use was associated with being younger (AOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99), male (AOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08-1.94), higher SES (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.28) and belonging to non-white ethnicities (vs. white, AOR 2.24, 95% CI 1.66-3.04). Compared to less than monthly users, monthly users were significantly more likely to have urges to smoke waterpipe (28.1% vs. 3.1%,

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Background Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. Methods We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. Results Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. Conclusion A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both