Association between XPF Polymorphisms and Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group F (XPF or ERCC4) plays a key role in DNA repair that protects against genetic instability and carcinogenesis. A series of epidemiological studies have examined associations between XPF polymorphisms and cancer risk, but the findings remain inconclusive. Methodology/Principal Findings: In this meta-analysis of 47,639 cancer cases and 51,915 controls, by searching three electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE and CNKI), we summarized 43 case-control studies from 29 publications on four commonly studied polymorphisms of XPF (i.e., rs1800067, rs1799801, rs2020955 and rs744154), and we did not find statistical evidence of any significant association with overall cancer risk. However, in stratification analyses, we found a significant association of XPF-rs1799801 with a reduced cancer risk in Caucasian populations (4,845 cases and 5,556 controls; recessive model: OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76–1.00, P = 0.049, P = 0.723 for heterogeneity test, I2 = 0). Further genotype-phenotype correlation analysis showed that the homozygous variant CC genotype carriers had higher XPF expression levels than that of the TT genotype carriers (Student’s t test for a recessive model: P = 0.046). No publication bias was found by using the funnel plot and Egger’s test. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests a lack of statistical evidence for the association between the four XPF SNPs and overall risk of cancers. However, XPF-rs1799801 may be associated with cancer risk in Caucasian populations, which needs to be further validated in single large, well-designed prospective studies

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Significance Communicating in ways that motivate engagement in social distancing remains a critical global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study tested motivational qualities of messages about social distancing (those that promoted choice and agency vs. those that were forceful and shaming) in 25,718 people in 89 countries. The autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of defying social distancing recommendations relative to the controlling message, and the controlling message increased controlled motivation, a less effective form of motivation, relative to no message. Message type did not impact intentions to socially distance, but people’s existing motivations were related to intentions. Findings were generalizable across a geographically diverse sample and may inform public health communication strategies in this and future global health emergencies. Abstract Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits: experimental evidence from 84 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., “If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others”) or potential gains (e.g., “If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others”)? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions