The views of young children in the UK about obesity, body size, shape and weight: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: There are high levels of concern about childhood obesity, with obese children being at higher risk of poorer health both in the short and longer terms. Children's attitudes to, and beliefs about, their bodies have also raised concern. Children themselves have a stake in this debate; their perspectives on this issue can inform the ways in which interventions aim to work.This systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research aimed to explore the views of UK children about the meanings of obesity and body size, shape or weight and their own experiences of these issues. METHODS: We conducted sensitive searches of electronic databases and specialist websites, and contacted experts. We included studies published from the start of 1997 which reported the perspectives of UK children aged 4-11 about obesity or body size, shape or weight, and which described key aspects of their methods. Included studies were coded and quality-assessed by two reviewers independently.Findings were synthesised in two analyses: i) an interpretive synthesis of findings from open-ended questions; and ii) an aggregative synthesis of findings from closed questions. We juxtaposed the findings from the two syntheses. The effect of excluding the lowest quality studies was explored. We also consulted young people to explore the credibility of a subset of findings. RESULTS: We included 28 studies. Instead of a focus on health, children emphasised the social impact of body size, describing experiences and awareness of abuse and isolation for children with a greater weight. Body size was seen as under the individual's control and children attributed negative characteristics to overweight people. Children actively assessed their own size; many wished their bodies were different and some were anxious about their shape.Reviewers judged that children's engagement and participation in discussion had only rarely been supported in the included studies, and few study findings had depth or breadth. CONCLUSIONS: Initiatives need to consider the social aspects of obesity, in particular unhelpful beliefs, attitudes and discriminatory behaviours around body size. Researchers and policy-makers should involve children actively and seek their views on appropriate forms of support around this issue

A cluster randomised trial testing an intervention to improve parents' recognition of their child's weight status: study protocol Health behavior, health promotion and society

Background: Parents typically do not recognise their child's weight status accurately according to clinical criteria, and thus may not take appropriate action if their child is overweight. We developed a novel visual intervention designed to improve parental perceptions of child weight status according to clinical criteria for children aged 4-5 and 10-11 years. The Map Me intervention comprises age- and sex-specific body image scales of known body mass index and supporting information about the health risks of childhood overweight. Design: This cluster randomised trial will test the effectiveness of the Map Me intervention. Primary schools will be randomised to: paper-based Map Me; web-based Map Me; no information (control). Parents of reception (4-5 years) and year 6 (10-11 years) children attending the schools will be recruited. The study will work with the National Child Measurement Programme which measures the height and weight of these year groups and provides feedback to parents about their child's weight status. Before receiving the feedback, parents will complete a questionnaire which includes assessment of their perception of their child's weight status and knowledge of the health consequences of childhood overweight. The control group will provide pre-intervention data with assessment soon after recruitment; the intervention groups will provide post-intervention data after access to Map Me for one month. The study will subsequently obtain the child height and weight measurements from the National Child Measurement Programme. Families will be followed-up by the study team at 12 months. The primary outcome is any difference in accuracy in parental perception of child weight status between pre-intervention and post-intervention at one month. The secondary outcomes include differences in parent knowledge, intention to change lifestyle behaviours and/or seek advice or support, perceived control, action planning, coping planning, and child weight status at 12 month follow-up. Discussion: The Map Me tool has potential to make a positive impact on children's health at a population level by introducing it into current intervention programmes to improve accuracy of parental perception of child's weight status. This trial will inform the action of researchers, educators, health professionals and policy makers. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91136472. Registered 3 May 2013

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Temporal and Spatial Variations in Macrofouling of Silicone Fouling-Release Coatings

Nontoxic, low surface free energy silicone coatings having reduced biofouling adhesion strength have been developed as an alternative to antifouling paints. Silicone coatings permit macrofouling to adhere; however, fouling can be removed easily by water pressure or light scrubbing. One of the current methods used to evaluate the performance of non-toxic silicone fouling-release coatings relies heavily on fouling coverage. The organismal community structure as well as total coverage can affect the ease of fouling removal from these coatings. This paper explores fouling coverage and organismal adhesion over time. Long-term fouling coverage data were collected at four sites (in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Florida) using static immersion panels coated with silicone and oil-amended silicone systems. Inter-site differences in fouling coverage and community structure were observed for each coating. Intra-site variation and temporal change in coverage of fouling was minimal, regardless of coating formulation. The extent of coverage was affected by the duration of immersion and the local environmental conditions; these factors may also have an impact on the foul-release capability of the silicone coatings. Organismal adhesion data was collected in Hawaii and Florida. These adhesion measurements were used as a tool to discriminate and rank fouling release coatings

Evaluation of the Performance Enhancement of Silicone Biofouling-Release Coatings by Oil Incorporation

In response to increased evidence of ecosystem damage by toxic antifouling paints, many researchers have developed nontoxic silicone fouling release coatings. The fouling release capability of these Systems may be improved by adding nonbonding silicone oils to the coating matrix. This idea has been tested by comparing the adhesion strength of hard- and soft-fouling organisms on a cured polydimethylsilicone (PDMS) network to that of the same network containing free polydi-methyldiphenylsilicone (PDMDPS) oil at five exposure sites in North America and Hawaii. Fouling coverage is discussed, together with the bioadhesion data, to emphasize that although these coatings foul the fouling is easily removed. The partitioning of the incorporated oil upon exposure of the coatings to a simulated marine environment containing sediment was determined. Less than 1.1 wt% of the incorporated oil was lost from the coating over one year, and the toxicity of these coatings was shown to be minimal to shrimp and fish. Brush abrasion wear was greater for coatings containing free oil, but the modulus of elasticity was not appreciably decreased by the addition of 10wt% free oil