Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in the Multiethnic Singapore Population - A National Cohort Study

Background: HRQoL is an important outcome to guide and promote healthcare. Clinical and socioeconomic factors may influence HRQoL according to ethnicity. Methodology: A multiethnic cross-sectional national cohort (N = 7198) of the Singapore general population consisting of Chinese (N = 4873), Malay (N = 1167) and Indian (N = 1158) adults were evaluated using measures of HRQoL (SF-36 version 2), family functioning, health behaviours and clinical/laboratory assessments. Multiple regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of physical and mental HRQoL in the overall population and their potential differential effects by ethnicity. No a priori hypotheses were formulated so all interaction effects were explored. Principal Findings: HRQoL levels differed between ethnic groups. Chinese respondents had higher physical HRQoL (PCS) than Indian and Malay participants (p<0.001) whereas mental HRQoL (MCS) was higher in Malay relative to Chinese participants (p<0.001). Regressions models explained 17.1% and 14.6% of variance in PCS and MCS respectively with comorbid burden, income and employment being associated with lower HRQoL. Age and family were associated only with MCS. The effects of gender, stroke and musculoskeletal conditions on PCS varied by ethnicity, suggesting non-uniform patterns of association for Chinese, Malay and Indian individuals. Conclusions: Differences in HRQoL levels and determinants of HRQoL among ethnic groups underscore the need to better or differentially target population segments to promote well-being. More work is needed to explore HRQoL and wellness in relation to ethnicity

Dosage-Sensitive Function of RETINOBLASTOMA RELATED and Convergent Epigenetic Control Are Required during the Arabidopsis Life Cycle

The plant life cycle alternates between two distinct multi-cellular generations, the reduced gametophytes and the dominant sporophyte. Little is known about how generation-specific cell fate, differentiation, and development are controlled by the core regulators of the cell cycle. In Arabidopsis, RETINOBLASTOMA RELATED (RBR), an evolutionarily ancient cell cycle regulator, controls cell proliferation, differentiation, and regulation of a subset of Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2) genes and METHYLTRANSFERASE 1 (MET1) in the male and female gametophytes, as well as cell fate establishment in the male gametophyte. Here we demonstrate that RBR is also essential for cell fate determination in the female gametophyte, as revealed by loss of cell-specific marker expression in all the gametophytic cells that lack RBR. Maintenance of genome integrity also requires RBR, because diploid plants heterozygous for rbr (rbr/RBR) produce an abnormal portion of triploid offspring, likely due to gametic genome duplication. While the sporophyte of the diploid mutant plants phenocopied wild type due to the haplosufficiency of RBR, genetic analysis of tetraploid plants triplex for rbr (rbr/rbr/rbr/RBR) revealed that RBR has a dosage-dependent pleiotropic effect on sporophytic development, trichome differentiation, and regulation of PRC2 subunit genes CURLY LEAF (CLF) and VERNALIZATION 2 (VRN2), and MET1 in leaves. There were, however, no obvious cell cycle and cell proliferation defects in these plant tissues, suggesting that a single functional RBR copy in tetraploids is capable of maintaining normal cell division but is not sufficient for distinct differentiation and developmental processes. Conversely, in leaves of mutants in sporophytic PRC2 subunits, trichome differentiation was also affected and expression of RBR and MET1 was reduced, providing evidence for a RBR-PRC2-MET1 regulatory feedback loop involved in sporophyte development. Together, dosage-sensitive RBR function and its genetic interaction with PRC2 genes and MET1 must have been recruited during plant evolution to control distinct generation-specific cell fate, differentiation, and development

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. Ethics and dissemination: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit programme (NIHR203568)

Causal and associational language in observational health research: A systematic evaluation.

This is the final version. Available from Oxford University Press via the DOI in this record. Data, data analysis code, and materials are available on the Open Science Framework project https://osf.io/jtdaz/.We estimated the degree to which language used in the high profile medical/public health/epidemiology literature implied causality using language linking exposures to outcomes and action recommendations; examined disconnects between language and recommendations; identified the most common linking phrases; and estimated how strongly linking phrases imply causality. We searched and screened for 1,170 articles from 18 high-profile journals (65 per journal) published from 2010-2019. Based on written framing and systematic guidance, three reviewers rated the degree of causality implied in abstracts and full text for exposure/outcome linking language and action recommendations. Reviewers rated the causal implication of exposure/outcome linking language as None (no causal implication) in 13.8%, Weak 34.2%, Moderate 33.2%, and Strong 18.7% of abstracts. The implied causality of action recommendations was higher than the implied causality of linking sentences for 44.5% or commensurate for 40.3% of articles. The most common linking word in abstracts was "associate" (45.7%). Reviewers' ratings of linking word roots were highly heterogeneous; over half of reviewers rated "association" as having at least some causal implication. This research undercuts the assumption that avoiding "causal" words leads to clarity of interpretation in medical research.Marie Skłodowska-Curie grantAustralian Research CouncilNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences UCLA Clinical Translational Science InstituteBloomberg American Health InitiativeKaren Toffler Charity Trus

The effect of an mHealth intervention for titration of insulin for type 2 diabetes: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND:Stabilising blood glucose levels (BGL) after starting or changing insulin and related therapies can be challenging for diabetes services and the patient with type 2 diabetes. Traditionally, a credentialled diabetes educator (CDE) would talk with the patient over the phone to obtain a history of their BGLs over the previous week and provide advice on the insulin dose adjustments as required. This study trialled a smartphone application for sharing BGLs, with the ability to digitally transmit advice back to patients compared with their usual care. AIMS:The aim of this study was to compare desirability, efficiency and ease of use. METHODS:Participants were enrolled in either the traditional (n=50) or Health2Sync (H2S) (n=42) treatment group by patient preference. All insulin stabilisations were conducted by the CDE. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS:The average total time taken to titrate patients was similar in both groups (p>0.05), however there were fewer failure of contacts reported with H2S (p<0.01) and time per interaction was also lower (p<0.01). Sensitivity analysis revealed that, excluding the influence of no contacts, H2S patients had a lower average time for titration (p<0.01). There was no difference in clinical outcomes as measured by HbA1c between the two groups (p=0.75). CONCLUSION:We demonstrated a high acceptance and clinical utility of the H2S application. Clinicians were happy to use H2S and found it easy and convenient for most patients. Importantly, this reduced frequency of contacts with patients, time per interaction and average time for titration (p<0.01). Patient selection for this communication intervention is important

Is the cure really worse than the disease? The health impacts of lockdowns during COVID-19

[Extract] During the pandemic, there has been ongoing and contentious debate around the impact of restrictive government measures to contain SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, often termed ‘lockdowns’. We define a ‘lockdown’ as a highly restrictive set of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19, including either stay-at-home orders or interventions with an equivalent effect on movement in the population through restriction of movement. While necessarily broad, this definition encompasses the strict interventions embraced by many nations during the pandemic, particularly those that have prevented individuals from venturing outside of their homes for most reasons. The claims often include the idea that the benefits of lockdowns on infection control may be outweighed by the negative impacts on the economy, social structure, education and mental health. A much stronger claim that has still persistently appeared in the media as well as peer-reviewed research concerns only health effects: that there has been a large toll of death and disease attributable directly to government action against COVID-19, a toll larger than that of COVID-19 itself.1 2 The tagline for this claim is that “the cure is worse than the disease”

People's Experiences and Satisfaction With Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has rapidly been adopted to deliver health care services around the world. To date, studies have not compared people's experiences with telehealth services during the pandemic in Australia to their experiences with traditional in-person visits. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare participants' perceptions of telehealth consults to their perceptions of traditional in-person visits and investigate whether people believe that telehealth services would be useful after the pandemic. METHODS: A national, cross-sectional, community survey was conducted between June 5 and June 12, 2020 in Australia. In total, 1369 participants who were aged ≥18 years and lived in Australia were recruited via targeted advertisements on social media (ie, Facebook and Instagram). Participants responded to survey questions about their telehealth experience, which included a free-text response option. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of having a poorer telehealth experience than a traditional in-person visit experience. Content analysis was performed to determine the reasons why telehealth experiences were worse than traditional in-person visit experiences. RESULTS: Of the 596 telehealth users, the majority of respondents (n=369, 61.9%) stated that their telehealth experience was "just as good as" or "better than" their traditional in-person medical appointment experience. On average, respondents perceived that telehealth would be moderately useful to very useful for medical appointments after the COVID-19 pandemic ends (mean 3.67, SD 1.1). Being male (P=.007), having a history of both depression and anxiety (P=.016), and lower patient activation scores (ie, individuals' willingness to take on the role of managing their health/health care) (P=.036) were significantly associated with a poor telehealth experience. In total, 6 overarching themes were identified from free-text responses for why participants' telehealth experiences were poorer than their traditional in-person medical appointment experiences, as follows: communication is not as effective, limitations with technology, issues with obtaining prescriptions and pathology results, reduced confidence in their doctor, additional burden for complex care, and inability to be physically examined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our sample's responses, telehealth appointment experiences were comparable to traditional in-person medical appointment experiences. Telehealth may be worthwhile as a mode of health care delivery while the pandemic continues, and it may continue to be worthwhile after the pandemic

Diabetic retinopathy screening at the point of care (DR SPOC) : detecting undiagnosed and vision-threatening retinopathy by integrating portable technologies within existing services

Introduction The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a low socioeconomic region of a high-income country, as well as determine the diagnostic utility of point-of-care screening for high-risk populations in tertiary care settings. Research design and methods This was a cross-sectional study of patients with diabetes attending foot ulcer or integrated care diabetes clinics at two Western Sydney hospitals (n=273). DR was assessed using portable, two-field, non-mydriatic fundus photography and combined electroretinogram/ pupillometry (ERG). With mydriatic photographs used as the reference standard, sensitivity and specificity of the devices were determined. Prevalence of DR and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) were reported, with multivariate logistic regression used to identify predictors of DR. Results Among 273 patients, 39.6% had any DR, while 15.8% had VTDR, of whom 59.3% and 62.8% were previously undiagnosed, respectively. Non-mydriatic photography demonstrated 20.2% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity for any DR, with a 56.7% screening failure rate. Meanwhile, mydriatic photography produced high-quality images with a 7.6% failure rate. ERG demonstrated 72.5% sensitivity and 70.1% specificity, with a 15.0% failure rate. The RETeval ERG was noted to have an optimal DR cut-off score at 22. Multivariate logistic regression identified an eGFR of ≤29 mL/min/1.73 m 2, HbA1c of ≥7.0%, pupil size of <4 mm diameter, diabetes duration of 5-24 years and RETeval score of ≥22 as strong predictors of DR. Conclusion There is a high prevalence of vision-threatening and undiagnosed DR among patients attending high-risk tertiary clinics in Western Sydney. Point-of-care DR screening using portable, mydriatic photography demonstrates potential as a model of care which is easily accessible, targeted for high-risk populations and substantially enhances DR detection