Toxicity Ranking and Toxic Mode of Action Evaluation of Commonly Used Agricultural Adjuvants on the Basis of Bacterial Gene Expression Profiles

The omnipresent group of pesticide adjuvants are often referred to as “inert” ingredients, a rather misleading term since consumers associate this term with “safe”. The upcoming new EU regulation concerning the introduction of plant protection products on the market (EC1107/2009) includes for the first time the demand for information on the possible negative effects of not only the active ingredients but also the used adjuvants. This new regulation requires basic toxicological information that allows decisions on the use/ban or preference of use of available adjuvants. In this study we obtained toxicological relevant information through a multiple endpoint reporter assay for a broad selection of commonly used adjuvants including several solvents (e.g. isophorone) and non-ionic surfactants (e.g. ethoxylated alcohols). The used assay allows the toxicity screening in a mechanistic way, with direct measurement of specific toxicological responses (e.g. oxidative stress, DNA damage, membrane damage and general cell lesions). The results show that the selected solvents are less toxic than the surfactants, suggesting that solvents may have a preference of use, but further research on more compounds is needed to confirm this observation. The gene expression profiles of the selected surfactants reveal that a phenol (ethoxylated tristyrylphenol) and an organosilicone surfactant (ethoxylated trisiloxane) show little or no inductions at EC20 concentrations, making them preferred surfactants for use in different applications. The organosilicone surfactant shows little or no toxicity and good adjuvant properties. However, this study also illustrates possible genotoxicity (induction of the bacterial SOS response) for several surfactants (POEA, AE, tri-EO, EO FA and EO NP) and one solvent (gamma-butyrolactone). Although the number of compounds that were evaluated is rather limited (13), the results show that the used reporter assay is a promising tool to rank commonly used agricultural adjuvants based on toxicity and toxic mode of action data

A User-Centered Approach: Understanding Client and Caregiver Needs and Preferences in the Development of mHealth Apps for Self-Management

Background: Many adolescents and young adults with chronic illness or disability often fail to develop the self-management skills necessary to independently handle medical and self-management routines. In light of these needs, we are developing iMHere 2.0 (Interactive Mobile Health and Rehabilitation), a mobile health (mHealth) system to support a self-management program. Objective: Our objective was to gather data from persons with brain and spinal cord anomalies (BSA) and their caregivers to better understand how mHealth would be most helpful in supporting them to proactively manage daily self-care routines and to access medical care as needed. The specific purpose was not only to gather feedback and to gain increased insight into the design of the new version of iMHere, but also to gather perspectives of new groups, namely adolescents as young as 12 years and their parents and/or caregivers. Methods: Our project employed focus group sessions and surveys to collect data from participants with BSA, as well as their caregivers. A total of six focus group sessions were conducted on four separate occasions until the data gathered reached saturation. The objectives of our focus group sessions were to better understand ways to develop mHealth systems to support self-management, to promote independence, to motivate long-term system use, and to prevent medical problems that lead to hospitalizations and emergency room visits for youth and young adults with BSA. Results: A total of 16 youth and young adults with BSA and 11 caregivers participated in the sessions. Within and among our groups, the following five overarching themes emerged from the data: (1) make it easy, (2) engage, (3) educate and prepare, (4) motivate and support, and (5) personalize. Participants shared their perspectives and detailed information about mHealth apps that would be important for independence in self-care and self-management. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that most individuals keep their mobile phones with them at all times and typically use a mobile phone for social media, music, photos, and texting. Our qualitative analysis indicates that youth and young adults with BSA, as well as their caregivers, acknowledge the importance of being actively engaged in developing and using mHealth apps that monitor and manage their health care needs. Information gleaned from these focus group sessions and surveys have provided data to refine the iMHere 2.0 mHealth prototype platform that we have developed

BETTER HEALTH: Durham -- protocol for a cluster randomized trial of BETTER in community and public health settings

Abstract Background The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) cluster randomized trial in primary care settings demonstrated a 30% improvement in adherence to evidence-based Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) activities. CDPS activities included healthy activities, lifestyle modifications, and screening tests. We present a protocol for the adaptation of BETTER to a public health setting, and testing the adaptation in a cluster randomized trial (BETTER HEALTH: Durham) among low income neighbourhoods in Durham Region, Ontario (Canada). Methods The BETTER intervention consists of a personalized prevention visit between a participant and a prevention practitioner, which is focused on the participant’s eligible CDPS activities, and uses Brief Action Planning, to empower the participant to set achievable short-term goals. BETTER HEALTH: Durham aims to establish that the BETTER intervention can be adapted and proven effective among 40–64 year old residents of low income areas when provided in the community by public health nurses trained as prevention practitioners. Focus groups and key informant interviews among stakeholders and eligible residents of low income areas will inform the adaptation, along with feedback from the trial’s Community Advisory Committee. We have created a sampling frame of 16 clusters composed of census dissemination areas in the lowest urban quintile of median household income, and will sample 10 clusters to be randomly allocated to immediate intervention or six month wait list control. Accounting for the clustered design effect, the trial will have 80% power to detect an absolute 30% difference in the primary outcome, a composite score of completed eligible CDPS actions six months after enrollment. The prevention practitioner will attempt to link participants without a primary care provider (PCP) to a local PCP. The implementation of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be evaluated by focus groups and key informant interviews. Discussion The effectiveness of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be tested for delivery in low income neighbourhoods by a public health department. Trial Registration: NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017