Can environmental or occupational hazards alter the sex ratio at birth? A systematic review

More than 100 studies have examined whether environmental or occupational exposures of parents affect the sex ratio of their offspring at birth. For this review, we searched Medline and Web of Science using the terms ‘sex ratio at birth’ and ‘sex ratio and exposure’ for all dates, and reviewed bibliographies of relevant studies to find additional articles. This review focuses on exposures that have been the subject of at least four studies including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, pesticides, lead and other metals, radiation, boron, and g-forces. For paternal exposures, only dioxins and PCBs were consistently associated with sex ratios higher or lower than the expected 1.06. Dioxins were associated with a decreased proportion of male births, whereas PCBs were associated with an increased proportion of male births. There was limited evidence for a decrease in the proportion of male births after paternal exposure to DBCP, lead, methylmercury, non-ionizing radiation, ionizing radiation treatment for childhood cancer, boron, or g-forces. Few studies have found higher or lower sex ratios associated with maternal exposures. Studies in humans and animals have found a reduction in the number of male births associated with lower male fertility, but the mechanism by which environmental hazards might change the sex ratio has not yet been established

Low health literacy is associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Germany

Background!#!Low health literacy is believed to be associated with behaviours that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. But there is limited knowledge on the relation between health literacy (HL) and diabetes risk, and whether improving HL could be a potential prevention strategy. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to examine the link between HL and diabetes risk among non-diabetic adults.!##!Methods!#!We used data from the Hamburg Diabetes Prevention Survey, a population-based cross-sectional study in Germany. One thousand, two hundred and fifty-five non-diabetic subjects aged 18-60 years were eligible. The German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS, ranging 0 to 123 points) was used to determine the individual risk of type 2 diabetes. The short version of the European Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16, ranging 0 to 16 points) was applied to assess the individual self-reported HL. Subjects were asked to self-estimate their diabetes risk, which was then compared with the calculated GDRS. Descriptive statistics were calculated to investigate group differences in the GDRS and self-estimated diabetes risk. Linear as well as logistic regression models were performed to analyse potential influencing variables of the GDRS as well as incorrect self-estimated diabetes risk. In three nested statistical models for each outcome, these analyses were adjusted for age, gender, educational level and the presence of chronic conditions.!##!Results!#!According to the criteria of the GDRS, 996 (79.4%) subjects showed 'low risk', 176 (14.0%) 'still low risk', 53 (4.2%) 'elevated risk', and 30 (2.4%) 'high to very high risk' to develop type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years. In the statistical models including all control variables, subjects with 'inadequate HL' scored 2.38 points higher on the GDRS (95% CI 0.378 to 4.336; P = 0.020) and had a 2.04 greater chance to estimate their diabetes risk incorrectly (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.14; P = 0.001) compared to those with 'sufficient HL'.!##!Conclusion!#!The risk of type 2 diabetes is increased in people with inadequate self-reported HL. People with high diabetes risk and inadequate HL might be provided with educational programs to improve diabetes knowledge and reduce behavioural risk factors

Covid-19 “vaccine passport” discourses : an exploratory study of 23 countries

This comparative study looks into the proposed “vaccine passport” initiative from various human rights aspects. It was undertaken by the Global Digital Human Rights Network, an action started under the EU’s Cooperation in Science and Technology programme. The network currently unites more than 80 scholars and practitioners from 40 countries. The findings are based on responses to questions put to the network members by the authors of this study in February 2021 (questions attached in Annex I). We acknowledge individual contributions from colleagues (listed in the table of contributors above), whose views are sometimes presented in a generalised fashion. The study concentrated on the availability of a legal framework for the proposed “vaccine passport”, whether such a “passport” would create binding obligations in the public and private sectors or, alternatively, what would be the scope of discretion allowed to public and private entities to make their decisions affecting rights holders’ access to various services. The attitudes prevalent in different states and in the media were also analysed, along with the aspects that need to be considered to avoid potential human rights violations. There has been no thorough analysis in most countries as to whether a normative national basis exists to restrict fundamental rights through the requirement of having a “vaccine passport” to access certain locations or services. Compatibility of the proposed passport with European and/or international human rights rules and principles is a marginal issue in public discourse. Conceptualisation about such compatibility remains general and theoretical, and has not reached the level of practicality and effectiveness. Most countries have not enacted concrete legislative acts or provisions to deal with a pandemic of this scale and magnitude. [Excerpt from Introduction and Synopsis]peer-reviewe