Urban–Rural Differences in Hip Fracture Mortality: A Nationwide NOREPOS Study

Higher hip fracture incidence in urban than in rural areas has been demonstrated, but urban–rural differences in posthip fracture mortality have been less investigated, and the results are disparate. Hence, the aims of the present register‐based cohort study were to examine possible urban–rural differences in short‐ and long‐term mortality in Norwegian hip fracture patients and their potential associations with sociodemographic variables, and to investigate possible urban–rural differences in excess mortality in hip fracture patients compared with the general population. Data were provided from the NOREPOS hip fracture database, the 2001 Population and Housing Census, and the National Registry. The urbanization degree in each municipality was determined by the proportion of inhabitants living in densely populated areas (rural: 2/3). Age‐adjusted mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios were calculated for hip fracture patients living in rural, semirural, and urban municipalities. A flexible parametric model was used to estimate age‐adjusted average and time‐varying HRs by category of urbanization with the rural category as reference. Among 96,693 hip fracture patients, urban residents had higher mortality than their rural‐dwelling counterparts. The HR of mortality in urban compared with rural areas peaked during the first 1 to 2 years postfracture with a maximum HR of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.30) in men and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.21) in women. The differences were significant during approximately 5 years after fracture. Adjusting for sociodemographic variables did not substantially change the results. However, absolute 30‐day mortality was not significantly different between urban and rural residents, suggesting that health‐care quality immediately postfracture does not vary by urbanization. The novel findings of a higher long‐term mortality in urban hip fracture patients might reflect disparities in health status or lifestyle, differences in posthip fracture health care or rehabilitation, or a combination of several factors

Nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy in single-rooted teeth

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of tooth related and patient related factors on the success of non-surgical and surgical periodontal therapy. In 41 patients (22 female) with untreated and/or recurrent periodontitis, no therapy, scaling and root planing (SRP), or access flap (AF) were assigned according to probing pocket depth (PPD). PPD and vertical relative attachment level (RAL-V) were obtained initially, 3 and 6 months after therapy. Baseline data were compared according to therapy, jaw, tooth type, and site. Factors influencing clinical parameters were identified using multilevel analyses. Baseline PPDs were deeper interproximally, in the maxilla and at premolars compared to buccal/oral sites, mandibular, and anterior teeth. At 6 months, PPD reduction and RAL-V gain were significantly greater at sites receiving SRP and AF as compared to untreated sites (p < 0.001). PPD reduction and RAL-V gain were significantly less (p < 0.005) in smokers as compared to nosmokers and at interproximal sites (p < 0.0001) as compared to buccal/oral sites. RAL-V gain was less in aggressive periodontitis, and PPD reduction was less in the maxilla (p < 0.001). In sites with greater bone loss and infrabony defects, a poorer response was observed regarding RAL-V gain or PPD reduction, respectively. The conclusions of the study are the following: (1) Nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapies are effective in single-rooted teeth; (2) severe interproximal bone loss and infrabony defects deteriorate clinical results; and (3) there seem to be more defect-associated (tooth, site) factors influencing treatment outcome than patient-associated factors

The Psychological Science Accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data

The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data

The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology Through a Distributed Collaborative Network

Source at https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607.Concerns about the veracity of psychological research have been growing. Many findings in psychological science are based on studies with insufficient statistical power and nonrepresentative samples, or may otherwise be limited to specific, ungeneralizable settings or populations. Crowdsourced research, a type of large-scale collaboration in which one or more research projects are conducted across multiple lab sites, offers a pragmatic solution to these and other current methodological challenges. The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) is a distributed network of laboratories designed to enable and support crowdsourced research projects. These projects can focus on novel research questions or replicate prior research in large, diverse samples. The PSA’s mission is to accelerate the accumulation of reliable and generalizable evidence in psychological science. Here, we describe the background, structure, principles, procedures, benefits, and challenges of the PSA. In contrast to other crowdsourced research networks, the PSA is ongoing (as opposed to time limited), efficient (in that structures and principles are reused for different projects), decentralized, diverse (in both subjects and researchers), and inclusive (of proposals, contributions, and other relevant input from anyone inside or outside the network). The PSA and other approaches to crowdsourced psychological science will advance understanding of mental processes and behaviors by enabling rigorous research and systematic examination of its generalizability

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This crosscountry, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one's core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people's existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

In COVID-19 Health Messaging, Loss Framing Increases Anxiety with Little-to-No Concomitant Benefits: Experimental Evidence from 84 Countries

The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., "If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others") or potential gains (e.g., "If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others")? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions