Influencia del social media en el proceso de decisión de compra de los consumidores millennials, en el sector de restaurantes de comida rápida del área metropolitana de San Salvador.

El sector de restaurantes de comida rápida cuenta con la presencia de grandes y exitosas marcas, que dominan el mercado salvadoreño. Estas buscan innovación constante, con el propósito de fidelizar consumidores reales y potenciales, utilizando el social media para promover productos y servicios, a través de la interacción con estos. El objetivo de la investigación es analizar el nivel de influencia del social media en el proceso de decisión de compra de los consumidores millennials, en el sector de restaurantes de comida rápida del área metropolitana de San Salvador. El capítulo I, inicia con el planteamiento del problema, antecedentes, justificación, objetivos e hipótesis. En el marco teórico se explican variables relacionadas al marketing, consumidores millennials, fases del proceso de decisión de compra, branding, preferencia de marcas y generalidades del social media como herramienta del marketing digital. Además, se abordan aspectos históricos, legales y conceptuales. El capítulo II, comprende la descripción metodológica de la investigación, donde se detalla el método científico con enfoque mixto, de tipo no experimental y diseño transeccional o transversal correlacional-causal. Los datos fueron recolectados mediante técnicas cuantitativas y cualitativas. Luego se describe la operatividad de la investigación. Finalmente el capítulo III, presenta el procesamiento de información recopilada mediante las técnicas. Para la encuesta, se tomó de referencia preguntas correspondientes al instrumento, posteriormente los datos fueron tabulados, interpretados y analizados. En la observación directa, se visualizó la interacción que existe entre restaurantes de comida rápida y consumidores millennials, a través de plataformas del social media. Dentro del plan de solución se encuentra el informe de resultados, que muestra las variables relacionadas al comportamiento de compra de consumidores millennials, según edad, género, ocupación, ingresos y municipio de residencia; seguido de conclusiones y recomendaciones

Designing a comprehensive behaviour change intervention to promote and monitor exclusive use of liquefied petroleum gas stoves for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) trial

Introduction Increasing use of cleaner fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and abandonment of solid fuels is key to reducing household air pollution and realising potential health improvements in low-income countries. However, achieving exclusive LPG use in households unaccustomed to this type of fuel, used in combination with a new stove technology, requires substantial behaviour change. We conducted theory-grounded formative research to identify contextual factors influencing cooking fuel choice to guide the development of behavioural strategies for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) trial. The HAPIN trial will assess the impact of exclusive LPG use on air pollution exposure and health of pregnant women, older adult women, and infants under 1 year of age in Guatemala, India, Peru, and Rwanda.Methods Using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behaviour (COM–B) framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to guide formative research, we conducted in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, observations, key informant interviews and pilot studies to identify key influencers of cooking behaviours in the four countries. We used these findings to develop behavioural strategies likely to achieve exclusive LPG use in the HAPIN trial.Results We identified nine potential influencers of exclusive LPG use, including perceived disadvantages of solid fuels, family preferences, cookware, traditional foods, non-food-related cooking, heating needs, LPG awareness, safety and cost and availability of fuel. Mapping formative findings onto the theoretical frameworks, behavioural strategies for achieving exclusive LPG use in each research site included free fuel deliveries, locally acceptable stoves and equipment, hands-on training and printed materials and videos emphasising relevant messages. In the HAPIN trial, we will monitor and reinforce exclusive LPG use through temperature data loggers, LPG fuel delivery tracking, in-home observations and behavioural reinforcement visits.Conclusion Our formative research and behavioural strategies can inform the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of theory-informed strategies to promote exclusive LPG use in future stove programmes and research studies.Trial registration number NCT02944682, Pre-results

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present