Socioeconomic status as a moderator between social cognitions and physical activity: Systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Theory of Planned Behavior

Background: Health inequalities are to a substantial degree due to socioeconomic status (SES) related differences in health behaviors such as physical activity. However, little is known about the role SES plays in the self-regulation of physical activity. Purpose: This systematic review with meta-analysis examines whether a comprehensive set of indicators of SES (income, education, occupational status) impacts on the behavioral self-regulation by moderating the relationships between social cognitions in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and physical activity. Methods: A systematic literature search identified 94 studies from 83 articles that provided information on sample SES and correlations between TPB variables and physical activity. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool correlations corrected for sampling and measurement error. Random-effects meta-regression was used to examine moderating effects of study-level SES on these correlations. Results: Education moderated the relationship between intentions and physical activity, such that studies with better educated samples reported stronger intention-physical activity relationships. Conclusions: These results suggest that education might play a major role in the self-regulation of physical activity, with better educated samples more likely to translate intentions into behavior. This can both help to explain heterogeneity in the relation between intentions and physical activity as well as support the development of more effective interventions targeting intentions and physical activity

Rethinking classic starling displacement experiments : evidence for innate or for learned migratory directions?

Funding for the present work came from the Spinoza Premium 2014 awarded to TP by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), with supplementary funding from an anonymous donor, the Gieskes-Strijbis Fonds and the Ubbo Emmius Fonds of the University of Groningen. TO was supported by Rubicon a grant from NWO (ref. 019.172EN.011)In an attempt to encourage the discourse on sources of individual variation in seasonal migration patterns and the microevolution of bird migration, we here critically examine the published interpretations of a now classic displacement study with starlings Sturnus vulgaris. Based on the ring recoveries after experimental displacement towards the south and southeast of Dutch capture sites of over 18 000 hatch‐year and older starlings, in a series of analyses published in Ardea from 1958 to 1983, A. C. Perdeck established that displaced starlings showed appropriately changed orientations only when they were experienced. During both southward and northward migration, released adults navigated to an apparently previously learned goal (i.e. the wintering or the breeding area) by showing appropriately changed orientations. Juveniles showed appropriate directions when returning to the breeding grounds. In contrast, during their first southward migration displaced juveniles carried on in the direction (and possibly the distance) expected for their release at the Dutch capture site. From the mid‐1970s this work has become cited as evidence for starlings demonstrating ‘innate’ migratory directions. If the definition of innateness is ‘not learned by the individual itself’, then there is a range of non‐innate influences on development that are not ruled out by Perdeck's experimental outcomes. For example, young starlings might have carried on in the direction that they learned to migrate before being caught, e.g. by observing the migratory directions of experienced conspecifics. We argue that, despite over 60 citations to Perdeck as demonstrating innate migratory directions, the jury is out.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Do socio-structural factors moderate the effects of health cognitions on COVID-19 protection behaviours?

Objective Adherence to protection behaviours remains key to curbing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, but there are substantial differences in individual adherence to recommendations according to socio-structural factors. To better understand such differences, the current research examines whether relationships between health cognitions based on the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) and eight COVID-19 protection behaviours vary as a function of participant-level socio-structural factors. Methods Within-person design with behaviours nested within participants in a two-wave online survey (one week delay) conducted during the UK national lockdown in April 2020. A UK representative sample of 477 adults completed baseline measures from the RAA plus perceived susceptibility and past behaviour for eight protection behaviours, and self-reported behaviour one week later. Moderated hierarchical linear models with cross-level interactions were used to test moderation of health cognitions by socio-structural factors (sex, age, ethnicity, deprivation). Results Sex, ethnicity and deprivation moderated the effects of health cognitions on protection intentions and behaviour. For example, the effects of injunctive norms on intentions were stronger in men compared to women. Importantly, intention was a weaker predictor of behaviour in more compared to less deprived groups. In addition, there was evidence that perceived autonomy was a stronger predictor of behaviour in more deprived groups. Conclusion Socio-structural variables affect how health cognitions relate to recommended COVID-19 protection behaviours. As a result, behavioural interventions based on social-cognitive theories might be less effective in participants from disadvantaged backgrounds

Collective animal navigation and migratory culture: From theoretical models to empirical evidence

Animals often travel in groups, and their navigational decisions can be influenced by social interactions. Both theory and empirical observations suggest that such collective navigation can result in individuals improving their ability to find their way and could be one of the key benefits of sociality for these species. Here, we provide an overview of the potential mechanisms underlying collective navigation, review the known, and supposed, empirical evidence for such behaviour and highlight interesting directions for future research. We further explore how both social and collective learning during group navigation could lead to the accumulation of knowledge at the population level, resulting in the emergence of migratory culture

Atopic conditions and brain tumor risk in children and adolescents—an international case-control study (CEFALO)

In this study, atopic conditions were not associated with risk of brain tumors in children and adolescents or of glioma in particular. Results are not consistent with findings for adult glioma, possibly explained by a different distribution of histological subtypes. Only a few studies on atopic conditions and pediatric brain tumors are currently available, and the evidence is conflictin

The Effects of Two Planning Interventions on the Oral Health Behavior of Iranian Adolescents: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a planning intervention (specifying when, where, and how to act) and an implementation intention intervention (specifying the same in the format of an if-then plan) in increasing self-reported brushing in adolescents. METHODS: The study adopted a cluster randomized controlled trial design, and 1158 students in 48 schools were randomized to planning, implementation intention, or active control conditions. After baseline assessment, all participants received a leaflet containing information and recommendations on oral health and instructions on correct brushing behavior. After reading the leaflets, they were provided with a toothbrush and toothpaste plus a calendar in which to record their brushing. Participants in the planning condition and in the implementation intention condition also received instructions to form specific plans regarding brushing behavior. Self-reported brushing, perceived behavioral control, self-monitoring, intention, frequency of planning, oral health-related quality of life, and dental plaque and periodontal status were measured 1 and 6 months later. RESULTS: Both intervention conditions showed a significant improvement in the frequency of self-reported brushing, self-monitoring, frequency of planning, intention, perceived behavioral control, plaque index, periodontal health, and oral health-related quality of life compared to the control condition at both follow-ups. Comparing the two intervention conditions revealed that adolescents who received the implementation intention intervention had significantly greater improvement in the frequency of self-reported brushing, intention, frequency of planning, and periodontal health than those in planning condition. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the findings suggest that forming implementation intentions as well as planning has the potential to increase dental self-reported brushing rates in adolescents, but that forming implementation intentions has the strongest impact on dental hygiene behavior and is, therefore, recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02066987) https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02066987

Headache, tinnitus and hearing loss in the international Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS) in Sweden and Finland

Background Mobile phone use and exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) from it have been associated with symptoms in some studies, but the studies have shortcomings and their findings are inconsistent. We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess the association between amount of mobile phone use at baseline and frequency of headache, tinnitus or hearing loss at 4-year follow-up. Methods The participants had mobile phone subscriptions with major mobile phone network operators in Sweden (n = 21 049) and Finland (n = 3120), gave consent for obtaining their mobile phone call data from operator records at baseline, and filled in both baseline and follow-up questionnaires on symptoms, potential confounders and further characteristics of their mobile phone use. Results The participants with the highest decile of recorded call-time (average call-time >276 min per week) at baseline showed a weak, suggestive increased frequency of weekly headaches at 4-year follow-up (adjusted odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.95–1.34). There was no obvious gradient of weekly headache with increasing call-time (P trend 0.06). The association of headache with call-time was stronger for the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) network than older Global System for Mobile Telecommunications (GSM) technology, despite the latter involving higher exposure to RF-EMF. Tinnitus and hearing loss showed no association with call-time. Conclusions People using mobile phones most extensively for making or receiving calls at baseline reported weekly headaches slightly more frequently at follow-up than other users, but this finding largely disappeared after adjustment for confounders and was not related to call-time in GSM with higher RF-EMF exposure. Tinnitus and hearing loss were not associated with amount of call-time

Parental Tobacco Smoking and the Risk of Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Children: the Childhood Leukemia International Consortium (CLIC).

n/

A precautionary public health protection strategy for the possible risk of childhood leukaemia from exposure to power frequency magnetic fields

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Epidemiological evidence showing a consistent association between the risk of childhood leukaemia and exposure to power frequency magnetic fields has been accumulating. This debate considers the additional precautionary intervention needed to manage this risk, when it exceeds the protection afforded by the exposure guidelines as recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Bradford-Hill Criteria are guidelines for evaluating the scientific evidence that low frequency magnetic fields cause childhood leukaemia. The criteria are used for assessing the strength of scientific evidence and here have been applied to considering the strength of evidence that exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields may increase the risk of childhood leukaemia. The applicability of precaution is considered using the risk management framework outlined in a European Commission (EC) communication on the Precautionary Principle. That communication advises that measures should be proportionate, non-discriminatory, consistent with similar measures already taken, based on an examination of the benefits and costs of action and inaction, and subject to review in the light of new scientific findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The main evidence for a risk is an epidemiological association observed in several studies and meta-analyses; however, the number of highly exposed children is small and the association could be due to a combination of selection bias, confounding and chance. Corroborating experimental evidence is limited insofar as there is no clear indication of harm at the field levels implicated; however, the aetiology of childhood leukaemia is poorly understood. Taking a precautionary approach suggests that low-cost intervention to reduce exposure is appropriate. This assumes that if the risk is real, its impact is likely to be small. It also recognises the consequential cost of any major intervention. The recommendation is controversial in that other interpretations of the data are possible, and low-cost intervention may not fully alleviate the risk.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The debate shows how the EC risk management framework can be used to apply the Precautionary Principle to small and uncertain public health risks. However, despite the need for evidence-based policy making, many of the decisions remain value driven and therefore subjective.</p

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures – namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research – were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization. JT reports personal financial interest in form of scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, DaiichiSankyo, F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc. And also educational collaboration with Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). JT also declares institutional financial interest in form of financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International SA, F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen‐Cilag SA, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health KGAA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica SA, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho Pharma USA Inc, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation and Cancer Research UK. MB has received funding for his research projects and for educational grants to the University of Dresden by Bayer AG (2016‐2018), Merck KGaA (2014‐open) and Medipan GmbH (2014‐2018). He is on the supervisory board of HI‐STEM GmbH (Heidelberg) for the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ, Heidelberg) and also member of the supervisory body of the Charité University Hospital, Berlin. As former chair of OncoRay (Dresden) and present CEO and Scientific Chair of the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ, Heidelberg), he has been or is responsible for collaborations with a multitude of companies and institutions, worldwide. In this capacity, he has discussed potential projects and signed contracts for research funding and/or collaborations with industry and academia for his institute(s) and staff, including but not limited to pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bosch, Roche and other companies such as Siemens, IBA, Varian, Elekta, Bruker, etc. In this role, he was/is also responsible for the commercial technology transfer activities of his institute(s), including the creation of start‐ups and licensing. This includes the DKFZ‐PSMA617 related patent portfolio [WO2015055318 (A1), ANTIGEN (PSMA)] and similar IP portfolios. MB confirms that, to the best of his knowledge, none of the above funding sources were involved in the preparation of this paper. BB has received research funding from 4D Pharma, Abbvie, Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cergentis, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi‐Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Inivata, Janssen, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Roche‐Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. FC declares consultancy role for: Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi‐Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck‐Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre‐Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva. SF is a consulting or advisory board member at Bayer, Illumina, Roche; has received honoraria from Amgen, Eli Lilly, PharmaMar, Roche; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche; has received sponsorship of travel or accommodation expenses by Amgen, Eli Lilly, Illumina, PharmaMar, Roche. SG owns AstraZeneca stock and is a full‐time employee of AstraZeneca. PN has had an advisory role at Bayer, MSD Oncology, has received honoraria from Bayer, Novartis and MSD Oncology, and has had travel expenses paid by Novartis. JO has been an advisory board member at Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Merck, Eisai, Astrazeneca, Pierre Fabre Medicament and Bristol‐Myers Squibb. He has also received research funding by IPO Porto, Astrazeneca, Fundação para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) and Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro (LPCC). AR is an employee of European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, Brussels, MSD International Business GmbH, Kriens, Switzerland[CvG1], and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA, who may own stock and/or hold stock options in the Company.RS serves as principal investigator of the ASCO TAPUR study. ASCO receives research grants from the following companies in support of the study: Astra‐Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer‐Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics. Dr. Schilsky serves as a member of the managing board of Clariifi and as a consultant to Bryologyx, Cellworks Group, EQRx, and Scandion Oncology. The Netherlands Cancer Institute receives research support via EV from Roche, Astrazeneca, Eisai, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Janssen and Seagen. LZ is founder of everImmune, member of the board of directors of Transgene, member of the scientific advisory board of Transgene, EpiVax, Lytix Biopharma. LZ has also had research contracts with: Merus, Roche, Tusk, Kaleido, GSK, BMS, Incyte, Pileje, Innovate Pharma, and Transgene and has received honoraria by Transgene. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Regarding the design of innovative and adaptive clinical trials, two examples were illustrated: the first European multimodular, two‐part academic CCE‐endorsed Basket of Baskets (BoB) study, and the recently launched CCE Building Data Rich Clinical Trials (DART) Consortium, which is supported by EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Box 13 ). We are grateful for the support by Carolina Espina, International Agency for Research on Cancer; Christina von Gertten, European Academy of Cancer Sciences; Ana Augusta Silva, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto; and Teresa Tavares, Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education, Portugal for their excellent cooperation. Carmen Jeronimo, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, collaborated in the presentation of Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center by Raquel Seruca