Biopsychosocial predictors of perceived life expectancy in a national sample of older men and women.

Perceived life expectancy (PLE) is predictive of mortality risk in older adults, but the factors that may contribute to mental conceptions of PLE are unknown. We aimed to describe the sociodemographic, biomedical, behavioral, and psychological predictors of self-reported PLE estimates among older English adults. Data were from 6662 adults aged 50-79 years in the population-based English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (cross-sectional sample from 2012/13). PLE was assessed in the face-to-face study interview ("What are the chances you will live to be age x or more?" where x = current age plus 10-15 years). Responses were categorized as 'low' (0-49%), 'medium' (50-74%), and 'high' (75-100%). Adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for low vs. high PLE were estimated using population-weighted modified Poisson regression with robust error variance. Overall, 1208/6662 (18%) participants reported a low PLE, 2806/6662 (42%) reported a medium PLE, and 2648/6662 (40%) reported a high PLE. The predictors of reporting a low PLE included older age (PR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.50-1.76 per 10 years), male sex (PR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.02-1.26), being a smoker (PR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.22-1.59 vs. never/former smoker), and having a diagnosis of cancer or diabetes. A low sense of control over life was associated with low PLE, as was low satisfaction with life and worse self-rated health. Those with a higher perceived social standing were less likely to report a low PLE (PR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.93 per 10-point increase, out of 100). This study provides novel insight into potential influences on older adults' expectations of their longevity, including aspects of psychological well-being. These results should be corroborated to better determine their implications for health-related decision-making, planning, and behavior among older adults

Implementation intentions in the entrepreneurial process: concept, empirical findings, and research agenda

Prior studies find sizable gaps between entrepreneurial intentions and subsequent actions. We extend models of entrepreneurial intentions by drawing on action phase theory to better understand how entrepreneurial intentions translate into actions. Our study focuses on the effects of implementation intentions on taking entrepreneurial action. The analysis uses two waves of survey data on 422 individuals, from the Swedish general population, who had an explicit interest in starting a business and who reported on their actions 6 months later. We test and find support for a moderated mediation model in which implementation intentions mediate the effects of goal intentions on taking entrepreneurial action. We further find the mediated effect to be even stronger for those confirming a strong intention to start a new business. We provide an in-depth discussion of the concept of implementation intention and an extensive research agenda.Peer reviewe

A cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote healthy lifestyle habits to school leavers:Study rationale, design, and methods

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity and a poor diet predict lifestyle diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer. Marked declines in physical activity occur during late adolescence, coinciding with the point at which many young people leave school and enter the workforce and begin to take greater control over their lifestyle behaviours. The work outlined within this paper sought to test a theoretically-informed intervention aimed at supporting increased engagement in physical activity and healthy eating habits in young people at the point of transition from school to work or work-based learning. As actively engaging young people in initiatives based on health messages is challenging, we also tested the efficacy of financial incentives in promoting initial engagement with the programme. METHODS/DESIGN: A three-arm cluster-randomised design was used. Participants were school pupils from Year 11 and 13 (i.e., in their final year of study), aged 16–18 years. To reduce contamination effects, the unit of randomisation was school. Participants were randomly allocated to receive (i) a 12-week behavioural support intervention consisting of six appointments, (ii) a behavioural support intervention plus incentives (totalling £40), or (iii) an information-only control group. Behavioural support was provided by fitness advisors at local leisure centres following an initial consultation with a dietician. Sessions focused on promoting habit formation through setting implementation intentions as part of an incremental goal setting process. Consistent with self-determination theory, all advisors were trained to provide guidance in an autonomy-supportive manner so that they were equipped to create a social context supportive of autonomous forms of participant motivation. The primary outcome was objectively assessed physical activity (via GT1M accelerometers). Secondary outcome measures were diet, motivation and habit strength. Data were collected at baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks) and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Findings of this trial will provide valuable insight into the feasibility of promoting autonomous engagement in healthy physical activity and dietary habits among school leavers. The research also provides much needed data and detailed information related to the use of incentives for the initial promotion of young peoples’ behaviour change during this important transition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55839517

Endocrine therapy-based treatments in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background Several endocrine therapy (ET)-based treatments are available for patients with advanced breast cancer. We assessed the efficacy of different ET-based treatments in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with endocrine-sensitive or endocrine-resistant disease. Methods We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 15 October 2019 and abstracts from major conferences from 2016 to October 2019. We included phase II/III randomised trials, comparing 652 ET-based treatments. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed by network meta-analyses using MTC Bayesian models based on both fixed-effect and random-effect models; relative treatment effects were measured as HRs and 95% credibility intervals (CrI). All statistical tests were two-sided. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and this systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database. Results 55 publications reporting on 32 trials (n=12 293 patients) were included. Regarding PFS in the endocrine sensitive setting (n=5200; 12 trials), the combination of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK)4/6-inhibitors (CDK4/6i)+fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) was likely the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)=97.3%), followed by CDK4/6i+aromatase inhibitor \ub1goserelin; there was no significant difference between them (HR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.54-1.25). Regarding OS (n=2157; five trials), the most effective treatment was probably CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=97.3%); comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.63-0.95). Regarding PFS in the endocrine-resistant setting (n=6635; 20 trials), CDK4/6i+F500 was likely the most effective treatment (SUCRA=95.7%), followed by capivasertib+F500, without significant difference between them (HR 0.91; 95% CrI 0.60-1.36). For OS (n=4377; 11 trials), the most effective treatments were capivasertib+F500 (SUCRA=84.7%) and CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=69.9%). Comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.67-0.89). Conclusions CDK4/6i+F500 is likely the best treatment option in both endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant diseases for PFS, and in endocrine-sensitive patients for OS. Concerning OS in endocrine-resistant patients, capivasertib+F500 and CDK4/6i+F500 are likely the best treatments. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018104628