Exploring the Relation between NPP-VIIRS Nighttime Lights and Carbon Footprint, Population Growth, and Energy Consumption in the UAE

Due to global warming and its detrimental effect, every country is responsible to join the global effort to reduce carbon emissions. In order to improve the mitigation plan of climate change, accurate es-timates of carbon emissions, population, and electricity consumption are critical. Carbon footprint is significantly linked to the socioeconomic development of the country which can be reflected in the city's infrastructure and urbanization. We may be able to estimate the carbon footprint, population growth, and electricity consumption of a city by observing the nighttime light reflecting its urbanization. This is more challenging in oil-producing countries where urbanization can be more complicated. In this study, we are therefore investigating the possibility of correlating the remotely sensed NPP-VIIRS Nighttime light (NTL) estimation with the aforementioned socioeconomic indicators. Daily NPP-VIIRS NTL were obtained for the period between 2012 to 2021 for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which is one of the top oil producing countries. The socioeconomic indicators of the UAE, including the population, electricity consumption, and carbon dioxide emissions, have been obtained for the same period. The analysis of the correlation between the NTLs and the population indicates that there is a high correlation of more than 0.9. There is also a very good correlation of 0.7 between NTLs and carbon emissions and electricity consumption. However, these correlations differ from one city to another. For example, Dubai has shown the highest correlation between population and NTLs (R2 > 0.8). However, the correlation was the lowest in Al-Ain, a rural city (R2 < 0.4) with maximum electricity consumption of 1.1E04 GWh. These results demonstrate that NTLs can be considered as a promising proxy for carbon footprint and urbanization in oil-producing regions

NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the working lives of healthcare workers (HCWs), but the extent to which their well-being and mental health have been affected remains unclear. This longitudinal cohort study aims to recruit a cohort of National Health Service (NHS) HCWs, conducting surveys at regular intervals to provide evidence about the prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders, and investigate associated factors such as occupational contexts and support interventions available. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All staff, students and volunteers working in the 18 participating NHS Trusts in England will be sent emails inviting them to complete a survey at baseline, with email invitations for the follow-up surveys sent 6 months and 12 months later. Opening in late April 2020, the baseline survey collects data on demographics, occupational/organisational factors, experiences of COVID-19, validated measures of symptoms of poor mental health (eg, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder), and constructs such as resilience and moral injury. These surveys will be complemented by in-depth psychiatric interviews with a sample of HCWs. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted, to gain deeper understanding of the support programmes used or desired by staff, and facilitators and barriers to accessing such programmes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Health Research Authority (reference: 20/HRA/210, IRAS: 282686) and local Trust Research and Development approval. Cohort data are collected via Qualtrics online survey software, pseudonymised and held on secure university servers. Participants are aware that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and there is signposting to support services if participants feel they need it. Only those consenting to be contacted about further research will be invited to participate in further components. Findings will be rapidly shared with NHS Trusts, and via academic publications in due course

In silico development of simple sequence repeat markers within the aeschynomenoid/dalbergoid and genistoid clades of the Leguminosae family and their transferability to Arachis hypogaea, groundnut

Cultivated groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an agronomically and economically important oilseed crop grown extensively throughout the semi-arid tropics of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The genetic base of the cultivated groundnut is very narrow as a result of the genetic bottleneck associated with recent polyploidization which makes it critical to determine the levels of genetic diversity within available germplasm collections prior to breeding. In groundnut, the use of SSRs for diversity assessment may offer the potential to reveal genetic variation within the genome of the cultivated species. An alternative bioinformatics, or in silico approach, to identifying SSRs suitable for application in cultivated groundnut is presented, as a low-cost alternative to wet lab SSR identification. All available nucleotide sequences from species within the aeschynomenoid/dalbergoid and genistoid clades of the Leguminosae family were searched for SSR motifs and primers designed from 109 unique SSRs. Representative accessions from six genera within the aeschynomenoid/dalbergoid and genistoid clades were selected for assessing SSR-transferability rates. In total, 60% of the total cross-genera transfer testing reactions gave prominent and reproducible amplicons, with 51 of the 109 SSRs amplifying in A. hypogaea. These 51 SSRs were further tested against 27 diverse Arachis accessions and 18 revealed polymorphism, demonstrating that the in silico approach to SSR identification and development is a valid strategy in lesser-studied crops

Outcomes with plug‐based versus suture‐based vascular closure device after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background Studies comparing plug-based (i.e., MANTA) with suture-based (i.e., ProStar XL and ProGlide) vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore access closure after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have yielded mixed results. Aims To examine the comparative safety and efficacy of both types of VCDs among TAVR recipients. Methods An electronic database search was performed through March 2022 for studies comparing access-site related vascular complications with plug-based versus suture-based VCDs for large-bore access site closure after transfemoral (TF) TAVR. Results Ten studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 8 observational studies) with 3113 patients (MANTA = 1358, ProGlide/ProStar XL = 1755) were included. There was no difference between plug-based and suture-based VCD in the incidence of access-site major vascular complications (3.1% vs. 3.3%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52−1.53). The incidence of VCD failure was lower in plug-based VCD (5.2% vs. 7.1%, OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44−0.91). There was a trend toward a higher incidence of unplanned vascular intervention in plug-based VCD (8.2% vs. 5.9%, OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.97−1.89). Length of stay was shorter with MANTA. Subgroup analyses suggested significant interaction based on study designs such that there was higher incidence of access-site vascular complications and bleeding events with plug-based versus suture-based VCD among RCTs. Conclusion In patients undergoing TF-TAVR, large-bore access site closure with plug-based VCD was associated with a similar safety profile as suture-based VCD. However, subgroup analysis showed that plug-based VCD was associated with higher incidence of vascular and bleeding complications in RCTs

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorders in health-care workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-phase cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health-care workers have relied on self-reported screening measures to estimate the point prevalence of common mental disorders. Screening measures, which are designed to be sensitive, have low positive predictive value and often overestimate prevalence. We aimed to estimate prevalence of common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health-care workers in England using diagnostic interviews. METHODS: We did a two-phase, cross-sectional study comprising diagnostic interviews within a larger multisite longitudinal cohort of health-care workers (National Health Service [NHS] CHECK; n=23 462) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase, health-care workers across 18 NHS England Trusts were recruited. Baseline assessments were done using online surveys between April 24, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021. In the second phase, we selected a proportion of participants who had responded to the surveys and conducted diagnostic interviews to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. The recruitment period for the diagnostic interviews was between March 1, 2021 and Aug 27, 2021. Participants were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and assessed with the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) for common mental disorders or were screened with the 6-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-6) and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for PTSD. FINDINGS: The screening sample contained 23 462 participants: 2079 participants were excluded due to missing values on the GHQ-12 and 11 147 participants due to missing values on the PCL-6. 243 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for common mental disorders (CIS-R; mean age 42 years [range 21-70]; 185 [76%] women and 58 [24%] men) and 94 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for PTSD (CAPS-5; mean age 44 years [23-62]; 79 [84%] women and 15 [16%] men). 202 (83%) of 243 individuals in the common mental disorders sample and 83 (88%) of 94 individuals in the PTSD sample were White. GHQ-12 screening caseness for common mental disorders was 52·8% (95% CI 51·7-53·8). Using CIS-R diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder was 14·3% (10·4-19·2), population prevalence of depression was 13·7% (10·1-18·3), and combined population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder and depression was 21·5% (16·9-26·8). PCL-6 screening caseness for PTSD was 25·4% (24·3-26·5). Using CAPS-5 diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of PTSD was 7·9% (4·0-15·1). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence estimates of common mental disorders and PTSD in health-care workers were considerably lower when assessed using diagnostic interviews compared with screening tools. 21·5% of health-care workers met the threshold for diagnosable mental disorders, and thus might benefit from clinical intervention. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council; UCL/Wellcome; Rosetrees Trust; NHS England and Improvement; Economic and Social Research Council; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Maudsley and King's College London (KCL); NIHR Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at KCL

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorders in health-care workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-phase cross-sectional study

Background Previous studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health-care workers have relied on self-reported screening measures to estimate the point prevalence of common mental disorders. Screening measures, which are designed to be sensitive, have low positive predictive value and often overestimate prevalence. We aimed to estimate prevalence of common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health-care workers in England using diagnostic interviews. Methods We did a two-phase, cross-sectional study comprising diagnostic interviews within a larger multisite longitudinal cohort of health-care workers (National Health Service [NHS] CHECK; n=23 462) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase, health-care workers across 18 NHS England Trusts were recruited. Baseline assessments were done using online surveys between April 24, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021. In the second phase, we selected a proportion of participants who had responded to the surveys and conducted diagnostic interviews to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. The recruitment period for the diagnostic interviews was between March 1, 2021 and Aug 27, 2021. Participants were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and assessed with the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) for common mental disorders or were screened with the 6-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-6) and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for PTSD. Findings The screening sample contained 23 462 participants: 2079 participants were excluded due to missing values on the GHQ-12 and 11 147 participants due to missing values on the PCL-6. 243 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for common mental disorders (CIS-R; mean age 42 years [range 21–70]; 185 [76%] women and 58 [24%] men) and 94 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for PTSD (CAPS-5; mean age 44 years [23–62]; 79 [84%] women and 15 [16%] men). 202 (83%) of 243 individuals in the common mental disorders sample and 83 (88%) of 94 individuals in the PTSD sample were White. GHQ-12 screening caseness for common mental disorders was 52·8% (95% CI 51·7–53·8). Using CIS-R diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder was 14·3% (10·4–19·2), population prevalence of depression was 13·7% (10·1–18·3), and combined population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder and depression was 21·5% (16·9–26·8). PCL-6 screening caseness for PTSD was 25·4% (24·3–26·5). Using CAPS-5 diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of PTSD was 7·9% (4·0–15·1). Interpretation The prevalence estimates of common mental disorders and PTSD in health-care workers were considerably lower when assessed using diagnostic interviews compared with screening tools. 21·5% of health-care workers met the threshold for diagnosable mental disorders, and thus might benefit from clinical intervention

Comprehensive early intervention for patients with first-episode psychosis in Japan (J-CAP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Comprehensive approaches for patients with psychotic symptoms play essential roles in the symptomatic and functional outcomes of patients, especially during disease onset. In Japan, the shortage of mental health services, particularly for outpatients, and community-based supports has been a major problem. The purpose of this trial is to investigate the effectiveness and affordability of 18-month comprehensive early intervention services for patients with first-episode psychosis compared with typical treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This interventional, parallel, single-blinded (open but blinded raters trial) was effectively designed. The participants are patients with a diagnosis of F2 or F3 (International Classification of Disease, 10 th revision), with psychotic symptoms. The inclusion criteria were an age of 15-35 years, onset of psychotic symptoms within 5 years, first-episode psychosis, and residence in the catchment area of each site. Allocation will be conducted equally between case management and standard care groups. After enrollment, standard care will be provided for both groups, and community-based care to promote recovery for 18 months will be provided for the comprehensive approach group. The primary outcome will be the function domain of the global assessment of functioning scores at 18 months after enrollment. Data assessment will be performed at enrollment and 18, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. The target sample size will be 150, and registration will occur from March 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide promising results about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early intervention services in Japan to improve the quality and quantity of community mental health services.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This trial was registered in The University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (No. UMIN000005092).</p