11 research outputs found
Large-scale land acquisition for carbon: opportunities and risks:A SEFARI Special Advisory Group Final Report
Large-scale land acquisition for carbon: opportunities and risks:A SEFARI Special Advisory Group Final Report
Worldviews and trust of sources for health information on electronic nicotine delivery systems: Effects on risk perceptions and use
Public health agencies, the news media, and the tobacco/vapor industry have issued contradictory statements about the health effects of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). We investigated the levels of trust that consumers place in different information sources and how trust is associated with cultural worldviews, risk perceptions, ENDS use, and sociodemographic characteristics using a nationally representative sample of 6051 U.S. adults in 2015. Seventeen percent of adults were uncertain about their trust for one or more potential sources. Among the rest, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), health experts, and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) elicited the highest levels of trust. In contrast, tobacco and vapor manufacturers, vape shop employees, and, to a lesser extent, the news media were distrusted. Adults who had higher incomes and more education or espoused egalitarian and communitarian worldviews expressed more trust in health sources and the FDA, whereas those identifying as non-Hispanic Black or multiracial reported less trust. Current smokers, those who identified as non-Hispanic Black or other race, had lower incomes, and espoused hierarchy and individualism worldviews expressed less distrust toward the tobacco and vapor industry. Greater trust (or less distrust) toward the tobacco and vapor industry and an individualism worldview were associated with perceptions of lower risk of premature death from daily ENDS use, greater uncertainty about those risks, and greater odds of using ENDS. Public health and the FDA should consider consumer trust and worldviews in the design and regulation of public education campaigns regarding the potential health risks and benefits of ENDS
Large-scale land acquisition for carbon: opportunities and risks:A SEFARI Special Advisory Group
Large-scale land acquisition for carbon: opportunities and risks:A SEFARI Special Advisory Group
Declining inner suburbs? A longitudinal-spatial analysis of large metropolitan regions in Canada
Recruitment of Urban US Women at Risk for HIV Infection and Willingness to Participate in Future HIV Vaccine Trials
Recommended from our members
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