A co-designed mHealth programme to support healthy lifestyles in Māori and Pasifika peoples in New Zealand (OL@-OR@):A cluster-randomised controlled trial

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: The OL@-OR@ mobile health programme was co-designed with Māori and Pasifika communities in New Zealand, to support healthy lifestyle behaviours. We aimed to determine whether use of the programme improved adherence to health-related guidelines among Māori and Pasifika communities in New Zealand compared with a control group on a waiting list for the programme. Methods: The OL@-OR@ trial was a 12-week, two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial. A cluster was defined as any distinct location or setting in New Zealand where people with shared interests or contexts congregated, such as churches, sports clubs, and community groups. Members of a cluster were eligible to participate if they were aged 18 years or older, had regular access to a mobile device or computer, and had regular internet access. Clusters of Māori and of Pasifika (separately) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the intervention or control condition. The intervention group received the OL@-OR@ mHealth programme (smartphone app and website). The control group received a control version of the app that only collected baseline and outcome data. The primary outcome was self-reported adherence to health-related guidelines, which were measured with a composite health behaviour score (of physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, and fruit and vegetable intake) at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were self-reported adherence to health-related behaviour guidelines at 4 weeks; self-reported bodyweight at 12 weeks; and holistic health and wellbeing status at 12 weeks, in all enrolled individuals in eligible clusters; and user engagement with the app, in individuals allocated to the intervention. Adverse events were not collected. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001484336. Findings: Between Jan 24 and Aug 14, 2018, we enrolled 337 Māori participants from 19 clusters and 389 Pasifika participants from 18 clusters (n=726 participants) in the intervention group and 320 Māori participants from 15 clusters and 405 Pasifika participants from 17 clusters (n=725 participants) in the control group. Of these participants, 227 (67%) Māori participants and 347 (89%) Pasifika participants (n=574 participants) in the intervention group and 281 (88%) Māori participants and 369 (91%) Pasifika participants (n=650 participants) in the control group completed the 12-week follow-up and were included in the final analysis. Relative to baseline, adherence to health-related behaviour guidelines increased at 12 weeks in both groups (315 [43%] of 726 participants at baseline to 329 [57%] of 574 participants in the intervention group; 331 [46%] of 725 participants to 369 [57%] of 650 participants in the control group); however, there was no significant difference between intervention and control groups in adherence at 12 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 1·13; 95% CI 0·84–1·52; p=0·42). Furthermore, the proportion of participants adhering to guidelines on physical activity (351 [61%] of 574 intervention group participants vs 407 [63%] of 650 control group participants; OR 1·03, 95% CI 0·73–1·45; p=0·88), smoking (434 [76%] participants vs 501 [77%] participants; 1·12, 0·67–1·87; p=0·66), alcohol consumption (518 [90%] participants vs 596 [92%] participants; 0·73, 0·37–1·44; p=0·36), and fruit and vegetable intake (194 [34%] participants vs 196 [30%] participants; 1·08, 0·79–1·49; p=0·64) did not differ between groups. We found no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in any secondary outcome. 147 (26%) intervention group participants engaged with the OL@-OR@ programme (ie, set at least one behaviour change goal online). Interpretation: The OL@-OR@ mobile health programme did not improve adherence to health-related behaviour guidelines amongst Māori and Pasifika individuals. Funding: Healthier Lives He Oranga Hauora National Science Challenge

Pelvic tenderness is not limited to the prostate in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) type IIIA and IIIB: comparison of men with and without CP/CPPS

Background: We wished to determine if there were differences in pelvic and non-pelvic tenderness between men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) Type III and men without pelvic pain. Methods: We performed the Manual Tender Point Survey (MTPS) as described by the American College of Rheumatology on 62 men with CP/CPPS Type IIIA and IIIB and 98 men without pelvic pain. We also assessed tenderness of 10 external pelvic tender points (EPTP) and of 7 internal pelvic tender points (IPTP). All study participants completed the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Inventory (NIH CPSI). Results: We found that men with CPPS were significantly more tender in the MTPS, the EPTPS and the IPTPS. CPSI scores correlated with EPTP scale but not with IPTP scale or prostate tenderness. Prostatic tenderness was present in 75% of men with CPPS and in 50% of men without CPPS. Expressed prostatic fluid leukocytosis was not associated with prostatic tenderness. Conclusion: Men with CP/CPPS have more tenderness compared to men without CPPS. Tenderness in men with CPPS is distributed throughout the pelvis and not specific to the prostate

Prevalence of fibromyalgia in a low socioeconomic status population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of fibromyalgia, as well as to assess the major symptoms of this syndrome in an adult, low socioeconomic status population assisted by the primary health care system in a city in Brazil.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We cross-sectionally sampled individuals assisted by the public primary health care system (n = 768, 35–60 years old). Participants were interviewed by phone and screened about pain. They were then invited to be clinically assessed (304 accepted). Pain was estimated using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Fibromyalgia was assessed using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), as well as screening for tender points using dolorimetry. Statistical analyses included Bayesian Statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis Anova test (significance level = 5%).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From the phone-interview screening, we divided participants (n = 768) in three groups: No Pain (NP) (n = 185); Regional Pain (RP) (n = 388) and Widespread Pain (WP) (n = 106). Among those participating in the clinical assessments, (304 subjects), the prevalence of fibromyalgia was 4.4% (95% confidence interval [2.6%; 6.3%]). Symptoms of pain (VAS and FIQ), feeling well, job ability, fatigue, morning tiredness, stiffness, anxiety and depression were statically different among the groups. In multivariate analyses we found that individuals with FM and WP had significantly higher impairment than those with RP and NP. FM and WP were similarly disabling. Similarly, RP was no significantly different than NP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Fibromyalgia is prevalent in the low socioeconomic status population assisted by the public primary health care system. Prevalence was similar to other studies (4.4%) in a more diverse socioeconomic population. Individuals with FM and WP have significant impact in their well being.</p

LOCFAS–Assessed Evolution of Cognitive and Behavioral Functioning in a Sample of Pediatric Patients With Severe Acquired Brain Injury in the Postacute Phase

We studied 86 patients with severe acquired brain injuries of different etiology, aged 0 to 18 years, in a condition of vegetative state or minimally conscious state. During neurorehabilitation, we administered the Level of Cognitive Functioning Assessment Scale every 2 weeks in order to describe and compare the progressive improvement in their cognitive-behavioral functioning and responsiveness in different etiologies. Patients with traumatic brain injury showed more favorable clinical outcomes. The higher the level of functioning at the first evaluation, the better the outcome, and the higher the Glasgow Coma Scale score, the higher the Level of Cognitive Functioning Assessment Scale level reached at the end of hospitalization. Patients with an apparently stable clinical picture, too, showed a change in their ability to interact with the environment. This study underlines the importance of an individualized and early cognitive-behavioral intervention protocol that can reveal minimal and fluctuating responses. </p