Mental Health Advocacy: Building an Interdisciplinary Program for Agriculture Professionals

The suicide rate among agriculturalists is 3.5 times higher than the general population. A number of external factors related to the farming and veterinary work put individuals in agricultural populations at risk for poor mental health outcomes, including economic variables (e.g. tariffs, market prices), environmental factors affecting yield (e.g. drought, pests), and exposure to difficult or traumatic life events (e.g., mistreatment of animals, loss of crop). Rural values including self-reliance, work orientation, and individualism combined with logistical and systemic barriers to competent behavioral health care further increase risk. Project GROW (Generating Resilience in Our Workforce) is a multifaceted full semester program designed to train agriculture students in how to be mental health advocates in order to address the mental health and suicide crisis among farmers in the state of Texas

Do Some Students Need Special Protection From Research on Sex and Trauma? New Evidence for Young Adult Resilience in “Sensitive Topics” Research

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have expressed concerns that certain individuals or groups, such as participants who are younger, ethnic minorities, or who have certain psychological or personality traits, may be particularly distressed when participating in "sensitive topics" research. This study examined the effects of several demographic and individual difference factors (i.e., age, sex, ethnicity, religiosity, Big Five personality traits, and baseline psychological distress levels) on reactions to participation in sensitive topics research. Participants were 504 undergraduates who completed an extensive battery of either trauma/sex questionnaires or cognitive tests and rated their positive and negative emotional reactions and the perceived benefits and mental costs of participating. They also compared research participation to normal life stressors. Our findings indicated that individual difference and demographic risk factors do not increase participant distress after participating in sex/trauma research over and above that experienced after participating in traditionally minimal-risk cognitive tasks. Participants generally found research participation less distressing than normal life stressors and even enjoyable

Do Some Students Need Special Protection From Research on Sex and Trauma? New Evidence for Young Adult Resilience in “Sensitive Topics” Research

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have expressed concerns that certain individuals or groups, such as participants who are younger, ethnic minorities, or who have certain psychological or personality traits, may be particularly distressed when participating in "sensitive topics" research. This study examined the effects of several demographic and individual difference factors (i.e., age, sex, ethnicity, religiosity, Big Five personality traits, and baseline psychological distress levels) on reactions to participation in sensitive topics research. Participants were 504 undergraduates who completed an extensive battery of either trauma/sex questionnaires or cognitive tests and rated their positive and negative emotional reactions and the perceived benefits and mental costs of participating. They also compared research participation to normal life stressors. Our findings indicated that individual difference and demographic risk factors do not increase participant distress after participating in sex/trauma research over and above that experienced after participating in traditionally minimal-risk cognitive tasks. Participants generally found research participation less distressing than normal life stressors and even enjoyable

Multilaboratory Collaborative Study of a Nontarget Data Acquisition for Target Analysis (nDATA) Workflow Using Liquid Chromatography-High-Resolution Accurate Mass Spectrometry for Pesticide Screening in Fruits and Vegetables

Nontarget data acquisition for target analysis (nDATA) workflows using liquid chromatography-high-resolution accurate mass (LC-HRAM) spectrometry, spectral screening software, and a compound database have generated interest because of their potential for screening of pesticides in foods. However, these procedures and particularly the instrument processing software need to be thoroughly evaluated before implementation in routine analysis. In this work, 25 laboratories participated in a collaborative study to evaluate an nDATA workflow on high moisture produce (apple, banana, broccoli, carrot, grape, lettuce, orange, potato, strawberry, and tomato). Samples were extracted in each laboratory by quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS), and data were acquired by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) coupled to a high-resolution quadrupole Orbitrap (QOrbitrap) or quadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF) mass spectrometer operating in full-scan mass spectrometry (MS) data-independent tandem mass spectrometry (LC-FS MS/DIA MS/MS) acquisition mode. The nDATA workflow was evaluated using a restricted compound database with 51 pesticides and vendor processing software. Pesticide identifications were determined by retention time (tR, ±0.5 min relative to the reference retention times used in the compound database) and mass errors (?M) of the precursor (RTP, ?M ≤ ±5 ppm) and product ions (RTPI, ?M ≤ ±10 ppm). The elution profiles of all 51 pesticides were within ±0.5 min among 24 of the participating laboratories. Successful screening was determined by false positive and false negative rates of <5% in unfortified (pesticide-free) and fortified (10 and 100 μg/kg) produce matrices. Pesticide responses were dependent on the pesticide, matrix, and instrument. The false negative rates were 0.7 and 0.1% at 10 and 100 μg/kg, respectively, and the false positive rate was 1.1% from results of the participating LC-HRAM platforms. Further evaluation was achieved by providing produce samples spiked with pesticides at concentrations blinded to the laboratories. Twenty-two of the 25 laboratories were successful in identifying all fortified pesticides (0-7 pesticides ranging from 5 to 50 μg/kg) for each produce sample (99.7% detection rate). These studies provide convincing evidence that the nDATA comprehensive approach broadens the screening capabilities of pesticide analyses and provide a platform with the potential to be easily extended to a larger number of other chemical residues and contaminants in foods

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health