Short-term effectiveness of nutrition therapy to treat type 2 diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: This review examined the evidence arising from randomised controlled trials regarding the impact of nutrition therapy on glycaemic control in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Approach. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, OpenGrey and the International Clinical Trials Registry were searched (up to July 3 2020). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Trials were included if they evaluated nutrition therapy in adults diagnosed with T2DM, were conducted in LMICs, measured glycaemic control and the trial included a 3-month post-intervention assessment. Nutrition therapy was defined according to American Diabetes Association recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened the database. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted using a data collection form. Meta-analyses were conducted for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose. Trials were assessed for risk of bias (Cochrane Risk-of-Bias, Version 2.0) and overall certainty of evidence (GRADE). RESULTS: Four trials met inclusion criteria (total n=463), conducted in Malaysia, Iran and South Africa. All trials focused on nutrition education with no direct prescription or manipulation of diet. Mean differences between intervention and standard care were −0.63% (95% CI −1.47% to 0.21%) for HbA1c and −13.63 mg/dL (95% CI −37.61 to 10.34) for fasting blood glucose in favour of the intervention. Given the small number of eligible trials, moderate to high risk of publication bias and serious concerns regarding consistency and precision of the evidence, certainty of evidence was deemed to be very low. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of well-conducted randomised controlled trials that examine the long-term impact of nutrition therapy in LMICs, preventing firm conclusions to be made on their effectiveness. Further research is essential to discover realistic, evidence-based solutions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020188435

Exploring support needs of people living with diabetes during the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a UK survey

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has radically compromised healthcare for people living with chronic conditions such as diabetes. Government-imposed restrictions to contain the spread of the virus have forced people to suddenly adjust their lifestyle. This study aimed to capture the impact of the pandemic on people living with diabetes and the views of these individuals on ways in which the information, advice and support they are receiving could be improved. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An online anonymous survey was distributed across the UK during the first lockdown and initial easing. The survey comprised questions about confidence in diabetes self-management, resources used to obtain information, advice and support, and opinions on how these could be improved. Open-ended questions captured subjective experiences. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 773 adults with diabetes (69.2% type 1, 28.5% type 2). There was notable variability in the impact of the pandemic on confidence in self-management, with confidence having deteriorated most commonly in the ability to take care of own mental well-being (37.0% respondents) and improved most commonly in maintaining a healthy weight (21.1% respondents). 41.2% of respondents living alone reported not receiving any outside support. The quality of information, advice and support received from the healthcare team was rated poorly by 37.2%. Respondents sought greater communication and tailored advice from their care team, clear and consistent information from the government and news channels, and improved understanding of diabetes and its challenges from their personal networks and employers. CONCLUSION: Adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic has strained the mental health and well-being of people living with diabetes. Diabetes care teams must receive assistance to support these individuals without risking further inequalities in access to healthcare. Equipping personal networks and employers with knowledge on diabetes and skills to support self-management may reduce the burden on the National Health Service

When do children learn how to select a portion size?

The reduction of portion sizes supports weight-loss. This study looks at whether children have a conceptual understanding of portion size, by studying their ability to manually serve a portion size that corresponds to what they eat. In a clinical setting, discussion around portion size is subjective thus a computerised portion size tool is also trialled, with the portion sizes chosen on the screen being compared to amounts served manually. Children (n=76) age 5-6, 7-8 and 10-11 were asked to rate their hunger (VAS scale), liking (VAS scale) and ‘ideal portion size for lunch’ of eight interactive meal images using a computerised portion size tool. Children then manually self-served and consumed a portion of pasta. Plates were weighed to allow for the calculation of calories served and eaten. A positive correlation was found between manually served food portions and the amount eaten (r =.53, 95%CI [.34, .82, P<.001), indicating that many children were able to anticipate their likely food intake prior to meal onset. A regression model demonstrates that age contributes to 9.4% of the variance in portion size accuracy (t(68)= -2.3, p=.02). There was no relationship between portion size and either hunger or liking. The portion sizes chosen on the computer at lunchtime correlated to the amount manually served overall (r=.34, 95%CI [.07, .55], p<.01), but not in 5-6-year-old children. Manual portion-size selection can be observed in five-year olds and from age seven, children’s ‘virtual’ responses correlate with their manual portion selections. The application of the computerised portion-size tool requires further development but offers considerable potential

Health benefits of electrically-assisted cycling:a systematic review

Abstract Background Electrically assisted bicycles (e-bikes) have been highlighted as a method of active travel that could overcome some of the commonly reported barriers to cycle commuting. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the health benefits associated with e-cycling. Method A systematic literature review of studies examining physical activity, cardiorespiratory, metabolic and psychological outcomes associated with e-cycling. Where possible these outcomes were compared to those from conventional cycling and walking. Seven electronic databases, clinical trial registers, grey literature and reference lists were searched up to November 2017. Hand searching occurred until June 2018. Experimental or observational studies examining the impact of e-cycling on physical activity and/or health outcomes of interest were included. E-bikes used must have pedals and require pedalling for electric assistance to be provided. Results Seventeen studies (11 acute experiments, 6 longitudinal interventions) were identified involving a total of 300 participants. There was moderate evidence that e-cycling provided physical activity of at least moderate intensity, which was lower than the intensity elicited during conventional cycling, but higher than that during walking. There was also moderate evidence that e-cycling can improve cardiorespiratory fitness in physically inactive individuals. Evidence of the impact of e-cycling on metabolic and psychological health outcomes was inconclusive. Longitudinal evidence was compromised by weak study design and quality. Conclusion E-cycling can contribute to meeting physical activity recommendations and increasing physical fitness. As such, e-bikes offer a potential alternative to conventional cycling. Future research should examine the long-term health impacts of e-cycling using rigorous research designs

University students and staff able to maintain low daily contact numbers during various COVID-19 guideline periods

UK universities re-opened in September 2020, amidst the coronavirus epidemic. During the first term, various national social distancing measures were introduced, including banning groups of >6 people and the second lockdown in November; however, outbreaks among university students occurred. We aimed to measure the University of Bristol staff and student contact patterns via an online, longitudinal survey capturing self-reported contacts on the previous day. We investigated the change in contacts associated with COVID-19 guidance periods: post-first lockdown (23/06/2020–03/07/2020), relaxed guidance period (04/07/2020–13/09/2020), ‘rule-of-six’ period (14/09/2020–04/11/2020) and the second lockdown (05/11/2020–25/11/2020). In total, 722 staff (4199 responses) and 738 students (1906 responses) were included in the study. For staff, daily contacts were higher in the relaxed guidance and ‘rule-of-six’ periods than the post-first lockdown and second lockdown. Mean student contacts dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ and second lockdown periods. For both staff and students, the proportion meeting with groups larger than six dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ period and the second lockdown period, although was higher for students than for staff. Our results suggest university staff and students responded to national guidance by altering their social contacts. Most contacts during the second lockdown were household contacts. The response in staff and students was similar, suggesting that students can adhere to social distancing guidance while at university. The number of contacts recorded for both staff and students were much lower than those recorded by previous surveys in the UK conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic

Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: a UK survey

Background: Innovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use. Methods: An online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis. Results: Knowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making. Conclusions: Early insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption

Contacts and behaviours of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic at the start of the 2020/2021 academic year

University students have unique living, learning and social arrangements which may have implications for infectious disease transmission. To address this data gap, we created CONQUEST (COroNavirus QUESTionnaire), a longitudinal online survey of contacts, behaviour, and COVID-19 symptoms for University of Bristol (UoB) staff/students. Here, we analyse results from 740 students providing 1261 unique records from the start of the 2020/2021 academic year (14/09/2020–01/11/2020), where COVID-19 outbreaks led to the self-isolation of all students in some halls of residences. Although most students reported lower daily contacts than in pre-COVID-19 studies, there was heterogeneity, with some reporting many (median = 2, mean = 6.1, standard deviation = 15.0; 8% had ≥ 20 contacts). Around 40% of students’ contacts were with individuals external to the university, indicating potential for transmission to non-students/staff. Only 61% of those reporting cardinal symptoms in the past week self-isolated, although 99% with a positive COVID-19 test during the 2 weeks before survey completion had self-isolated within the last week. Some students who self-isolated had many contacts (mean = 4.3, standard deviation = 10.6). Our results provide context to the COVID-19 outbreaks seen in universities and are available for modelling future outbreaks and informing policy

Comparative analysis of distinct phenotypes in gambling disorder based on gambling preferences

Background: studies examining gambling preferences have identified the importance of the type of gambling practiced on distinct individual profiles. The objectives were to compare clinical, psychopathological and personality variables between two different groups of individuals with a gambling disorder (strategic and non-strategic gamblers) and to evaluate the statistical prediction capacity of these preferences with respect to the severity of the disorder. Method: a total sample of 2010 treatment-seeking patients with a gambling disorder participated in this stand-alone study. All were recruited from a single Pathological Gambling Unit in Spain (1709 strategic and 301 non-strategic gamblers). The design of the study was cross-sectional and data were collected at the start of treatment. Data was analysed using logistic regression for binary outcomes and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for quantitative responses. Results: there were significant differences in several socio-demographic and clinical variables, as well as in personality traits (novelty seeking and cooperativeness). Multiple regression analysis showed harm avoidance and self-directedness were the main predictors of gambling severity and psychopathology, while age at assessment and age of onset of gambling behaviour were predictive of gambling severity. Strategic gambling (as opposed to non-strategic) was significantly associated with clinical outcomes, but the effect size of the relationships was small. Conclusions: it is possible to identify distinct phenotypes depending on the preference of gambling. While these phenotypes differ in relation to the severity of the gambling disorder, psychopathology and personality traits, they can be useful from a clinical and therapeutic perspective in enabling risk factors to be identified and prevention programs targeting specific individual profiles to be developed

University students and staff able to maintain low daily contact numbers during various COVID-19 guideline periods

UK universities re-opened in September 2020, amidst the coronavirus epidemic. During the first term, various national social distancing measures were introduced, including banning groups of >6 people and the second lockdown in November; however, outbreaks among university students occurred. We aimed to measure the University of Bristol staff and student contact patterns via an online, longitudinal survey capturing self-reported contacts on the previous day. We investigated the change in contacts associated with COVID-19 guidance periods: post-first lockdown (23/06/2020–03/07/2020), relaxed guidance period (04/07/2020–13/09/2020), ‘rule-of-six’ period (14/09/2020–04/11/2020) and the second lockdown (05/11/2020–25/11/2020). In total, 722 staff (4199 responses) and 738 students (1906 responses) were included in the study. For staff, daily contacts were higher in the relaxed guidance and ‘rule-of-six’ periods than the post-first lockdown and second lockdown. Mean student contacts dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ and second lockdown periods. For both staff and students, the proportion meeting with groups larger than six dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ period and the second lockdown period, although was higher for students than for staff. Our results suggest university staff and students responded to national guidance by altering their social contacts. Most contacts during the second lockdown were household contacts. The response in staff and students was similar, suggesting that students can adhere to social distancing guidance while at university. The number of contacts recorded for both staff and students were much lower than those recorded by previous surveys in the UK conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic