Are sleep problems related to psychological distress in healthy aging during the covid-19 pandemic? A review

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, characterized by home confinement and other restrictive measures to reduce the spread of the infection, led to significant changes in people’s habits and lifestyle. One of the most common problems is the worsening of sleep quality or quantity, which could have negative effects on psychological wellbeing, particularly in older adults. The purposes of the present literature review considering healthy aging subjects are (a) to examine the existing research on sleep alterations during the current pandemic and (b) to highlight possible relationships between sleep problems and psychological distress. A systematic search strategy was implemented according to PRISMA guidelines in the international literature online databases, up to 1 July 2021. After identification and screening phases, 11 articles were included in this review. The studies found possible associations between sleep problems and mood changes—particularly in terms of depression and anxiety. In addition, altered sleep patterns seemed to be related to changes in individual aspects, lifestyle, and attitudes adopted by older adults during the COVID-19 lockdown. Thus, the pandemic could affect the sleep and psychological wellbeing of the older population, even in healthy aging

Deception in Research on the Placebo Effect

A common feature of research investigating the placebo effect is deception of research participants about the nature of the research. Miller and colleagues examine the ethical issues surrounding such deception

Geological and Hydrogeological Characterization of Springs in a DSGSD Context (Rodoretto Valley – NW Italian Alps)

As continuous groundwater monitoring in the upper sector of Rodoretto Valley (Germanasca Valley, Italian Western Alps) is hampered by logistical problem of data collection during winter and spring months, the only tools currently available to derive hydrogeological information are non-continuous and non-long-term dataset of spring discharge (Q), temperature (T) and electrical conductivity (EC). In order to quantity aquifer groundwater reserve, available Q dataset of a small mountain spring (Spring 1 CB) was investigated by applying the analytical solutions developed by Boussinesq (J Math Pure Appl 10:5–78, 1904) and Maillet (Essais dı’hydraulique souterraine et fluviale, vol 1. Herman et Cie, Paris, 1905); T and EC datasets were also used to provide qualitative information about the nature of the aquifer that supplies the spring. The outcomes of the elaborations highlighted the limits of applicability of these methods in the presence of a non-continuous Q dataset: both Boussinesq (J Math Pure Appl 10:5–78, 1904) and Maillet (Essais dı’hydraulique souterraine et fluviale, vol 1. Herman et Cie, Paris, 1905) estimated that discharge values as a function of recession time were found to be consistently lower than the available discharge ones and the estimated groundwater volumes stored over time above the spring level turned out to be underestimated. Continuous (hourly value) and long-term Q, EC and T values are, therefore, needful to correctly quantify and to make a proper management of groundwater resources in mountain areas

Are we drawing the right conclusions from randomised placebo-controlled trials? A post-hoc analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assumptions underlying placebo controlled trials include that the placebo effect impacts on all study arms equally, and that treatment effects are additional to the placebo effect. However, these assumptions have recently been challenged, and different mechanisms may potentially be operating in the placebo and treatment arms. The objective of the current study was to explore the nature of placebo versus pharmacological effects by comparing predictors of the placebo response with predictors of the treatment response in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of a phytotherapeutic combination for the treatment of menopausal symptoms. A substantial placebo response was observed but no significant difference in efficacy between the two arms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A <it>post hoc </it>analysis was conducted on data from 93 participants who completed this previously published study. Variables at baseline were investigated as potential predictors of the response on any of the endpoints of flushing, overall menopausal symptoms and depression. Focused tests were conducted using hierarchical linear regression analyses. Based on these findings, analyses were conducted for both groups separately. These findings are discussed in relation to existing literature on placebo effects.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Distinct differences in predictors were observed between the placebo and active groups. A significant difference was found for study entry anxiety, and Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) scores, on all three endpoints. Attitude to menopause was found to differ significantly between the two groups for GCS scores. Examination of the individual arms found anxiety at study entry to predict placebo response on all three outcome measures individually. In contrast, <it>low </it>anxiety was significantly associated with improvement in the active treatment group. None of the variables found to predict the placebo response was relevant to the treatment arm.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study was a <it>post hoc </it>analysis of predictors of the placebo versus treatment response. Whilst this study does not explore neurobiological mechanisms, these observations are consistent with the hypotheses that 'drug' effects and placebo effects are not necessarily additive, and that mutually exclusive mechanisms may be operating in the two arms. The need for more research in the area of mechanisms and mediators of placebo versus active responses is supported.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>International Clinical Trials Registry ISRCTN98972974.</p

An Educational and Physical Program to Reduce Headache, Neck/Shoulder Pain in a Working Community: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Noninvasive physical management is often prescribed for headache and neck pain. Systematic reviews, however, indicate that the evidence of its efficacy is limited. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a workplace educational and physical program in reducing headache and neck/shoulder pain. Methodology/Principal Findings: Cluster-randomized controlled trial. All municipal workers of the City of Turin, Italy, were invited to participate. Those who agreed were randomly assigned, according to their departments, to the intervention group (IG) or to the control group and were given diaries for the daily recording of pain episodes for 1 month (baseline). Subsequently, only the IG (119 departments, 923 workers) began the physical and educational program, whereas the control group (117 departments, 990 workers) did not receive any intervention. All participants were again given diaries for the daily recording of pain episodes after 6 months of intervention. The primary outcome was the change in the frequency of headache (expressed as the proportion of subjects with a 6550% reduction of frequency; responder rate); among the secondary outcomes there were the absolute reduction of the number of days per month with headache and neck/shoulder pain. Differences between the two groups were evaluated using mixed-effect regression models. The IG showed a higher responder rate [risk ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI)] for headache (1.58; 1.28 to 1.92) and for neck/shoulder pain (1.53; 1.27 to 1.82), and a larger reduction of the days per month (95% CI) with headache (-1.72; -2.40 to -1.04) and with neck/shoulder pain (-2.51; -3.56 to -1.47). Conclusions: The program effectively reduced headache and neck/shoulder pain in a large working community and appears to be easily transferable to primary-care settings. Further trials are needed to investigate the program effectiveness in a clinical setting, for highly selected patients suffering from specific headache types. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00551980. \ua9 2012 Mongini et al