Effect of an Ergonomics Educational Program on Musculoskeletal Disorders in Nursing Staff Working in the Operating Room: A Quasi-Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

publishedVersio

Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: II Intervention Effectiveness Across Time

Implicit preferences are malleable, but does that change last? We tested 9 interventions (8 real and 1 sham) to reduce implicit racial preferences over time. In 2 studies with a total of 6,321 participants, all 9 interventions immediately reduced implicit preferences. However, none were effective after a delay of several hours to several days. We also found that these interventions did not change explicit racial preferences and were not reliably moderated by motivations to respond without prejudice. Short-term malleability in implicit preferences does not necessarily lead to long-term change, raising new questions about the flexibility and stability of implicit preferences. (PsycINFO Database Recor

Massive X-ray screening reveals two allosteric drug binding sites of SARS-CoV-2 main protease

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 is creating tremendous health problems and economical challenges for mankind. To date, no effective drug is available to directly treat the disease and prevent virus spreading. In a search for a drug against COVID-19, we have performed a massive X-ray crystallographic screen of repurposing drug libraries containing 5953 individual compounds against the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is a potent drug target as it is essential for the virus replication. In contrast to commonly applied X-ray fragment screening experiments with molecules of low complexity, our screen tested already approved drugs and drugs in clinical trials. From the three-dimensional protein structures, we identified 37 compounds binding to Mpro. In subsequent cell-based viral reduction assays, one peptidomimetic and five non-peptidic compounds showed antiviral activity at non-toxic concentrations. Interestingly, two compounds bind outside the active site to the native dimer interface in close proximity to the S1 binding pocket. Another compound binds in a cleft between the catalytic and dimerization domain of Mpro. Neither binding site is related to the enzymatic active site and both represent attractive targets for drug development against SARS-CoV-2. This X-ray screening approach thus has the potential to help deliver an approved drug on an accelerated time-scale for this and future pandemics

X-ray screening identifies active site and allosteric inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 main protease

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 is creating tremendous human suffering. To date, no effective drug is available to directly treat the disease. In a search for a drug against COVID-19, we have performed a high-throughput X-ray crystallographic screen of two repurposing drug libraries against the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (M^(pro)), which is essential for viral replication. In contrast to commonly applied X-ray fragment screening experiments with molecules of low complexity, our screen tested already approved drugs and drugs in clinical trials. From the three-dimensional protein structures, we identified 37 compounds that bind to M^(pro). In subsequent cell-based viral reduction assays, one peptidomimetic and six non-peptidic compounds showed antiviral activity at non-toxic concentrations. We identified two allosteric binding sites representing attractive targets for drug development against SARS-CoV-2

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.Funding/Support: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. Dr Aljunid acknowledges the Department of Health Policy and Management of Kuwait University and the International Centre for Casemix and Clinical Coding, National University of Malaysia for the approval and support to participate in this research project. Dr Bhaskar acknowledges institutional support from the NSW Ministry of Health and NSW Health Pathology. Dr Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr Braithwaite acknowledges funding from the National Institutes of Health/ National Cancer Institute. Dr Conde acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council ERC Starting Grant agreement No 848325. Dr Costa acknowledges her grant (SFRH/BHD/110001/2015), received by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, IP under the Norma Transitória grant DL57/2016/CP1334/CT0006. Dr Ghith acknowledges support from a grant from Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0021856). Dr Glasbey is supported by a National Institute of Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship. Dr Vivek Kumar Gupta acknowledges funding support from National Health and Medical Research Council Australia. Dr Haque thanks Jazan University, Saudi Arabia for providing access to the Saudi Digital Library for this research study. Drs Herteliu, Pana, and Ausloos are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Dr Hugo received support from the Higher Education Improvement Coordination of the Brazilian Ministry of Education for a sabbatical period at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, between September 2019 and August 2020. Dr Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam acknowledges funding by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Fellowship and National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Fellowship. Dr Jakovljevic acknowledges support through grant OI 175014 of the Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. Dr Katikireddi acknowledges funding from a NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). Dr Md Nuruzzaman Khan acknowledges the support of Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, Bangladesh. Dr Yun Jin Kim was supported by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004). Dr Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support from Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación, which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Dr Loureiro was supported by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia under the Scientific Employment Stimulus–Institutional Call (CEECINST/00049/2018). Dr Molokhia is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center at Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Dr Moosavi appreciates NIGEB's support. Dr Pati acknowledges support from the SIAN Institute, Association for Biodiversity Conservation & Research. Dr Rakovac acknowledges a grant from the government of the Russian Federation in the context of World Health Organization Noncommunicable Diseases Office. Dr Samy was supported by a fellowship from the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. Dr Sheikh acknowledges support from Health Data Research UK. Drs Adithi Shetty and Unnikrishnan acknowledge support given by Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Pavanchand H. Shetty acknowledges Manipal Academy of Higher Education for their research support. Dr Diego Augusto Santos Silva was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil Finance Code 001 and is supported in part by CNPq (302028/2018-8). Dr Zhu acknowledges the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP210042

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

“Other Minds Are Not Equal”: Exploring the Role of Mind Perception in an Intergroup Context

Many theories have been developed to explain the processes by which people attribute mental states to other minds. However, these theories do not fully address potential asymmetries in the attribution of mind to members of one’s own vs. other groups. Recent research suggests that attributing or denying mental states to other human beings may depend on perceived stereotypes of the target group, but differences may also occur in the “minimal group” context—that is, upon first categorizing targets into arbitrary or novel groups. The current research proposes that there is, indeed, a difference in how we perceive the minds of ingroup and outgroup members and, consequently, in our moral judgments involving those individuals. Two studies were designed to analyze test this thesis. Study 1(N = 494 college students) made use of a writing task and speeded action identification task to assess spontaneous mental state attributions to members of four differentially stereotyped groups. Overall, the types of mind attributions produced in the writing samples reflected the stereotype content of the targeted groups. Results also confirmed that participants were more easily able to imagine the ingroup member performing complex actions, requiring higher levels of agency and motivation attributions, compared to the homeless target. This study also examined the moral consequences of attributing or withholding mental capacities to group members—with a specific focus on differences in harm and closeness, as well as consequentialist thoughts about the targeted groups. Mixed results were found supporting certain predictions based on stereotype content for some groups, but not others. Study 2 (N = 390 college students) used the same tools to further explore the underlying mind perception in a less stereotype-rich context—namely, the minimal group paradigm. By manipulating group meaningfulness, this study examined the minimum conditions for the emergence of mind perception asymmetries. Despite the successful induction of minimal groups, this study’s findings found limited support for group entitativity influence on mind perception in this context. Theoretical implications for the future research are provided in the discussion

Is Culture More Important for Racial/Ethnic Minorities than for Whites? An Experiment and Survey on the Cultural (Mis)Attribution Bias Among College Students in the United States

• Objectives: The aim of this study is to determine the degree to which college students in the United States endorse the Cultural (Mis)Attribution Bias, the belief that culture matters more for racial/ethnic minorities than for Whites. We hypothesized that students will rate more favorably a sample of minorities for a homework assignment on culture (Hypothesis 1), more favorably a sample of Whites for an assignment on psychology (Hypothesis 2), will indicate that psychological processes are more influential in shaping the behavior of Whites (Hypothesis 3), that cultural processes are more influential in the behavior of minorities (Hypothesis 4), and will believe that other college students endorse these views (Hypothesis 5). We expected none of these effects to be moderated by participant’s race/ethnicity. • Methods: Convenience sample of college students (N = 798), 48% racial/ethnic minority, 66% female, Mage = 19.02. We conducted an experiment and survey with the same sample. • Results: We found support for Hypothesis 1, no support for Hypothesis 2, partial support for Hypothesis 3, support for Hypothesis 4, and partial support for Hypothesis 5. • Conclusions: These findings provide clear support to the “minorities are more cultural” dimension of this bias, but less support for the “Whites are more psychological” dimension. These findings have important implications, as they document that a sample of college students endorse this bias in ways that are both consistent and different to older, more educated, and less diverse faculty