Enhancing Protective Factors Among Children and Adolescents in Cleveland County, North Carolina

Addressing the social and community context social determinant of health (SDOH) has the potential to greatly impact the health, daily functioning, and quality of life of individuals and communities. Increasing the proportion of children and adolescents who communicate positively with their parents would benefit Cleveland County, North Carolina. Positive communication promotes emotional and physical health throughout adolescence, reduces nutrient deficiencies and substance misuse, and improves mental health. Expanding the Family Check Up (FCU) program and the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P Program) in Cleveland County will improve parent-child communication. The FCU program aims to decrease or prevent adolescent substance use and improve associated nutrition outcomes by addressing parent-child communication and household factors. Triple P educates parents to create a positive learning environment that increases their confidence, reduces their stress, and improves communication between parenting partners and their children.Master of Public Healt

Enhancing Protective Factors Among Children and Adolescents in Cleveland County, North Carolina

Addressing the social and community context social determinant of health (SDOH) has the potential to greatly impact the health, daily functioning, and quality of life of individuals and communities. Increasing the proportion of children and adolescents who communicate positively with their parents would benefit Cleveland County, North Carolina. Positive communication promotes emotional and physical health throughout adolescence, reduces nutrient deficiencies and substance misuse, and improves mental health. Expanding the Family Check Up (FCU) program and the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P Program) in Cleveland County will improve parent-child communication. The FCU program aims to decrease or prevent adolescent substance use and improve associated nutrition outcomes by addressing parent-child communication and household factors. Triple P educates parents to create a positive learning environment that increases their confidence, reduces their stress, and improves communication between parenting partners and their children.Master of Public Healt

Turning the periodic table upside down

The periodic table is immensely powerful for rationalizing many different properties of the chemical elements, but would turning it on its head make some important aspects easier to understand and give everyone a new perspective on chemistry

Enhancing Protective Factors Among Children and Adolescents in Cleveland County, North Carolina

Addressing the social and community context social determinant of health (SDOH) has the potential to greatly impact the health, daily functioning, and quality of life of individuals and communities. Increasing the proportion of children and adolescents who communicate positively with their parents would benefit Cleveland County, North Carolina. Positive communication promotes emotional and physical health throughout adolescence, reduces nutrient deficiencies and substance misuse, and improves mental health. Expanding the Family Check Up (FCU) program and the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P Program) in Cleveland County will improve parent-child communication. The FCU program aims to decrease or prevent adolescent substance use and improve associated nutrition outcomes by addressing parent-child communication and household factors. Triple P educates parents to create a positive learning environment that increases their confidence, reduces their stress, and improves communication between parenting partners and their children.Master of Public Healt

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. METHODS: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. RESULTS: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes

Early phase clinical trials extension to the guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans

This paper reports guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans for early phase clinical trials, ensuring specification of the minimum reporting analysis requirements, by detailing extensions (11 new items) and modifications (25 items) to existing guidance after a review by various stakeholders

Psychiatric disorders in individuals born very preterm / very low-birth weight : An individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis

Background: Data on psychiatric disorders in survivors born very preterm (VP; Methods: This individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis pooled data from eligible groups in the Adults born Preterm International Collaboration (APIC). Inclusion criteria included: 1) VP/VLBW group (birth weight 2499 g and/or gestational age >= 37 weeks), and 3) structured measure of psychiatric diagnoses using DSM or ICD criteria. Diagnoses of interest were Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Anxiety Disorder, Mood Disorder, Disruptive Behaviour Disorder (DBD), Eating Disorder, and Psychotic Disorder. A systematic search for eligible studies was conducted (PROSPERO Registration Number 47555). Findings: Data were obtained from 10 studies (1385 VP/VLBW participants, 1780 controls), using a range of instruments and approaches to assigning diagnoses. Those born VP/VLBW had ten times higher odds of meeting criteria for ASD (odds ratio [OR] 10.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.50, 44.7), five times higher odds of meeting criteria for ADHD (OR 5.42, 95% CI 3.10, 9.46), twice the odds of meeting criteria for Anxiety Disorder (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.36, 2.69), and 1.5 times the odds of meeting criteria for Mood Disorder (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08, 2.12) than controls. This pattern of findings was consistent within age (= 18 years) and sex subgroups. Interpretation: Our data suggests that individuals born VP/VLBW might have higher odds of meeting criteria for certain psychiatric disorders through childhood and into adulthood than term/NBW controls. Further research is needed to corroborate our results and identify factors associated with psychiatric disorders in individuals born VP/VLBW. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes, and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) II

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III):a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. METHODS: For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7-35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. FINDINGS: From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference -1·49, 95% CI -2·16 to -0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (-0·91, -1·58 to -0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (-0·86, -1·53 to -0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (-0·97, 95% CI -1·64 to -0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (-1·01, -1·68 to -0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre