How do adults define the treats they give to children? A thematic analysis

One in four children on the Island of Ireland are overweight or obese. The consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods such as snacks, contribute to one fifth of children’s calorie intake. However the snack food literature has failed to draw firm conclusions between snack food intake and obesity. Within this literature, the word snack and treat are used interchangeably, inconsistently and in differing contexts, which may explain the poor link between snacks or extra foods, and overweight or obesity. There is currently no academic definition of the word ‘treat’ relevant to an Irish population. Defining how adults perceive the treats they give children is of particular importance in the context of children’s diets, and may provide insight into the relative contribution of treats to energy intakes. With ten focus groups of adult caregivers of children, across the Island of Ireland, this study aimed to investigate treat giving behaviour. This research highlights a paradoxical definition of treats: a treat was identified as an energy-dense food that gave pleasure, was deserved and believed to be infrequent; participants perceived this to be the true definition of treats which was coined “real treats”. However, in reality, treats were given and consumed frequently, downgrading the status of these treats to “regular treats” which reflected their real-life use. Developing the definition of treats for an adult population may enhance our understanding of why adults give food treats to children, the role this has on the development of eating habits, the design of interventions, and communication strategies to reduce the consumption of non-nutritive foods, labelled by adults as treats

Effectiveness of testing, contact tracing and isolation interventions among the general population on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review

We conducted a systematic literature review of general population testing, contact tracing, case isolation and contact quarantine interventions to assess their effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as implemented in real-world settings. We designed a broad search strategy and aimed to identify peer-reviewed studies of any design provided there was a quantitative measure of effectiveness on a transmission outcome. Studies that assessed the effect of testing or diagnosis on disease outcomes via treatment, but did not assess a transmission outcome, were not included. We focused on interventions implemented among the general population rather than in specific settings; these were from anywhere in the world and published any time after 1 January 2020 until the end of 2022. From 26 720 titles and abstracts, 1181 were reviewed as full text, and 25 met our inclusion criteria. These 25 studies included one randomized control trial (RCT) and the remaining 24 analysed empirical data and made some attempt to control for confounding. Studies included were categorized by the type of intervention: contact tracing (seven studies); specific testing strategies (12 studies); strategies for isolating cases/contacts (four studies); and 'test, trace, isolate' (TTI) as a part of a package of interventions (two studies). None of the 25 studies were rated at low risk of bias and many were rated as serious risk of bias, particularly due to the likely presence of uncontrolled confounding factors, which was a major challenge in assessing the independent effects of TTI in observational studies. These confounding factors are to be expected from observational studies during an on-going pandemic, when the emphasis was on reducing the epidemic burden rather than trial design. Findings from these 25 studies suggested an important public health role for testing followed by isolation, especially where mass and serial testing was used to reduce transmission. Some of the most compelling analyses came from examining fine-grained within-country data on contact tracing; while broader studies which compared behaviour between countries also often found TTI led to reduced transmission and mortality, this was not universal. There was limited evidence for the benefit of isolation of cases/contacts away from the home environment. One study, an RCT, showed that daily testing of contacts could be a viable strategy to replace lengthy quarantine of contacts. Based on the scarcity of robust empirical evidence, we were not able to draw any firm quantitative conclusions about the quantitative impact of TTI interventions in different epidemic contexts. While the majority of studies found that testing, tracing and isolation reduced transmission, evidence for the scale of this impact is only available for specific scenarios and hence is not necessarily generalizable. Our review therefore emphasizes the need to conduct robust experimental studies that help inform the likely quantitative impact of different TTI interventions on transmission and their optimal design. Work is needed to support such studies in the context of future emerging epidemics, along with assessments of the cost-effectiveness of TTI interventions, which was beyond the scope of this review but will be critical to decision-making. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'

Is it still a real treat? Adults' treat provision to children

Consumption of high-energy foods in the absence of hunger has been identified as a key target to address in the area of obesity. For children, such foods are often provided by adults as treats. There is limited understating of adults' treat giving. The present study aimed to understand adults' provision of treats to children on the Island of Ireland. A total of 1039 participants, including parents, grandparents, child minders and education practitioners completed a face-to-face survey in their home. Participants defined their treats for children primarily as ‘something nice’, ‘deserved/earned’ and ‘something special’. The top three motivations for treat foods provision were ‘to reward for good behaviour’ (42.3%), ‘because the child(ren) ask’ (42.2%) and ‘to make the child(ren) feel better’ (29.4%). Almost all participants would provide treat foods at celebrations and 52.5% always did so. In addition, 68% participants had structured weekly and/or daily treat for children. Treats provided to children were dominated by energy-dense foods. The top three were sweets, chocolates and ice-creams, being used by 45.2%, 45.1% and 38.8% participants. Variations were observed across different adult groups, in terms of their treat giving behaviour. The main observation was that adults' treat foods provision has become habitual. The findings can help develop targeted strategies to encourage the reduction or replacement of food treats for children

Living with dementia under COVID-19 restrictions: coping and support needs among people with dementia and carers from the IDEAL cohort

Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Stringent social restrictions imposed during 2020 to counter the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic could significantly affect the wellbeing and quality of life of people with dementia living in the community and their family carers. We explored the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on people with dementia and family carers in England and considered how negative effects might be mitigated. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 11 people with dementia and 11 family carers who were ongoing participants in the IDEAL cohort during the initial ‘lockdown’ period in May and June 2020, and follow-up interviews with five people with dementia and two carers as restrictions were eased in July. We analysed interview data and triangulated the findings with issues raised in dementia-specific online forums. Findings showed some people with dementia were coping well, but others experienced a range of negative impacts, with varying degrees of improvement as restrictions were eased. The need for clear personalised information relating to COVID-19 and the value of support in the form of regular ‘just checking’ phone calls was emphasised. This exceptional situation provides a natural demonstration of how social and psychological resources shape the potential to ‘live well’ with dementia. While some support is recommended for all, a personalised approach to determine needs and coping ability would ensure that further practical and emotional support is targeted effectively.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) IDEAL COVID-19 Dementia Initiative (IDEAL-CDI); NIHR Policy Research Unit in Older People and Frailty (Policy Research Unit Programme reference number PR-PRU-1217-21502); Funded by Alzheimer's Society | UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Identifying and mitigating the individual and dyadic impact of COVID-19 and life under physical distancing on people with dementia and carers (INCLUDE)

Effectiveness of testing, contact tracing and isolation interventions among the general population on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 : a systematic review

We conducted a systematic literature review of general population testing, contact tracing, case isolation and contact quarantine interventions to assess their effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as implemented in real-world settings. We designed a broad search strategy and aimed to identify peer-reviewed studies of any design provided there was a quantitative measure of effectiveness on a transmission outcome. Studies that assessed the effect of testing or diagnosis on disease outcomes via treatment, but did not assess a transmission outcome, were not included. We focused on interventions implemented among the general population rather than in specific settings; these were from anywhere in the world and published any time after 1 January 2020 until the end of 2022. From 26 720 titles and abstracts, 1181 were reviewed as full text, and 25 met our inclusion criteria. These 25 studies included one randomized control trial (RCT) and the remaining 24 analysed empirical data and made some attempt to control for confounding. Studies included were categorized by the type of intervention: contact tracing (seven studies); specific testing strategies (12 studies); strategies for isolating cases/contacts (four studies); and ‘test, trace, isolate' (TTI) as a part of a package of interventions (two studies). None of the 25 studies were rated at low risk of bias and many were rated as serious risk of bias, particularly due to the likely presence of uncontrolled confounding factors, which was a major challenge in assessing the independent effects of TTI in observational studies. These confounding factors are to be expected from observational studies during an on-going pandemic, when the emphasis was on reducing the epidemic burden rather than trial design. Findings from these 25 studies suggested an important public health role for testing followed by isolation, especially where mass and serial testing was used to reduce transmission. Some of the most compelling analyses came from examining fine-grained within-country data on contact tracing; while broader studies which compared behaviour between countries also often found TTI led to reduced transmission and mortality, this was not universal. There was limited evidence for the benefit of isolation of cases/contacts away from the home environment. One study, an RCT, showed that daily testing of contacts could be a viable strategy to replace lengthy quarantine of contacts. Based on the scarcity of robust empirical evidence, we were not able to draw any firm quantitative conclusions about the quantitative impact of TTI interventions in different epidemic contexts. While the majority of studies found that testing, tracing and isolation reduced transmission, evidence for the scale of this impact is only available for specific scenarios and hence is not necessarily generalizable. Our review therefore emphasizes the need to conduct robust experimental studies that help inform the likely quantitative impact of different TTI interventions on transmission and their optimal design. Work is needed to support such studies in the context of future emerging epidemics, along with assessments of the cost-effectiveness of TTI interventions, which was beyond the scope of this review but will be critical to decision-making. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence’

Living with dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic: coping and support needs of community dwelling people with dementia and their family carers. : Research findings from the IDEAL COVID-19 Dementia Initiative (IDEAL-CDI)

We interviewed people with dementia and carers from the IDEAL cohort to find out how the COVID-19 lockdown and continuing restrictions affected those living with dementia. Some people with dementia coped well, while others coped with difficulty or were only just coping. The additional stress of COVID-19 exacerbated pre-existing coping difficulties. For many, social isolation increased anxiety. Some felt that lack of activity or lack of social contact caused a decline in their abilities to manage everyday tasks. Confusion about COVID-19 rules or difficulty remembering what to do led to anxiety when leaving the house. People felt that members of the public might not understand their particular needs. While some carers felt they were coping well, others experienced stress when having to leave the home because the person with dementia might not be safe if left alone. Some experienced increased strain in the caring relationship compounded by an uncertainty about future availability of respite. Some were concerned about the complex health needs of the person with dementia alongside COVID-19 risk and lack of personalised information. Both people with dementia and carers talked about the importance of access to safe outdoor space. People were anxious about how others would react or behave towards them regarding keeping a distance if they went out. Being connected to friends, family and wider community or support groups was important to help combat the effects of isolation. People from BAME communities worried about their increased vulnerability to the virus. A lack of trust in Government guidance and in health care services added to their anxiety. However, some benefitted from strong community and faith group involvement. What might be helpful for people with dementia? • Reablement to help regain or maintain skills • Personalised health advice regarding managing COVID-19 risk and the opportunity to ask questions. • Identification of people with dementia who live alone and an assessment of their needs. What might be helpful for carers? • Needs assessment in regard to respite. • Novel forms of respite care that incorporate social distancing. What might be helpful for both carers and people with dementia? • Access to COVID-safe outdoor spaces. • Continuation and expansion of ‘just checking’ services. • Support to get online and use the internet. • Communication and information through non-digital means. • Community COVID-19 ‘dementia awareness’ initiatives. What might be helpful for people from Black and minority ethnic groups? • Addressing concerns about their increased risk of COVID-19. • Directing information and support through existing community and faith groups

The relationship between perceived functional difficulties and the ability to live well with mild-to-moderate dementia: Findings from the IDEAL programme.

yesObjectives: The objectives of the study are to investigate how different levels of functional ability relate to quality of life, well‐being, and satisfaction with life, conceptualised as reflecting capability to “live well” in people with dementia. Methods/design: Participants were 1496 people with mild‐to‐moderate dementia and 1188 informants who completed baseline assessments in the Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life (IDEAL) cohort study. Total selfrated and informant‐rated scores on the Functional Activities Questionnaire were split into six ability levels to monitor how poorer functioning impacts the ability to live well. We also investigated the potential influence of sociodemographic and diagnostic variables, depression, cognition, and carer stress. Results: Multivariate multiple regression models found that people with dementia who had the greatest functional impairment according to self‐ratings and informant ratings had poorer living well scores than those with the least functional impairment. Sociodemographic and diagnostic factors and cognition had little impact on effect sizes. For self‐ratings, depression attenuated the relationship between functional ability and living well, whereas carer stress attenuated informant ratings. Conclusions: People with dementia with the least functional impairments had greater capability to live well than those with the most functional impairment. Even subtle perceived difficulties in functional ability had a detrimental effect on the ability of people with dementia to live well. Depression in people with dementia and carer stress in informants influenced these associations, and therefore, these factors should be routinely included in future research studies and clinical assessments

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Trials of fluoxetine for recovery after stroke report conflicting results. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) trial aimed to show if daily oral fluoxetine for 6 months after stroke improves functional outcome in an ethnically diverse population. Methods AFFINITY was a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (four), and Vietnam (ten). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of acute stroke in the previous 2–15 days, brain imaging consistent with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and a persisting neurological deficit that produced a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 1 or more. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm to once daily, oral fluoxetine 20 mg capsules or matching placebo for 6 months. Patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured by the mRS, at 6 months. The primary analysis was an ordinal logistic regression of the mRS at 6 months, adjusted for minimisation variables. Primary and safety analyses were done according to the patient's treatment allocation. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921. Findings Between Jan 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1280 patients were recruited in Australia (n=532), New Zealand (n=42), and Vietnam (n=706), of whom 642 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 638 were randomly assigned to placebo. Mean duration of trial treatment was 167 days (SD 48·1). At 6 months, mRS data were available in 624 (97%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 632 (99%) in the placebo group. The distribution of mRS categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15; p=0·53). Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the fluoxetine group had more falls (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]; p=0·018), bone fractures (19 [3%] vs six [1%]; p=0·014), and epileptic seizures (ten [2%] vs two [<1%]; p=0·038) at 6 months. Interpretation Oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and epileptic seizures. These results do not support the use of fluoxetine to improve functional outcome after stroke