“I’ve been manipulated!”: Designing Second Screen Experiences for Critical Viewing of Reality TV

The recent proliferation of a reality TV genre that focusses on welfare recipients has led to concerns that prime-time media experiences are exacerbating misconceptions, and stifling critical debate, around major societal issues such as welfare reform and poverty. Motivated by arguments that ‘second screening’ practices offer opportunities to engage viewers with issues of political concern, we describe the design and evaluation of two smartphone apps that facilitate and promote more critical live-viewing of reality TV. Our apps, Spotting Guide and Moral Compass, encourage users to identify, categorise, tag and filter patterns and tropes within reality TV, as well as reinterpret social media posts associated with their broadcast. We show that such interactions encourage critical thinking around typical editing and production techniques and foster co-discussion and reflection amongst viewers. We discuss, more broadly, how these interactions encourage users to identify the wider consequences and framings of reality TV, and offer implications and considerations for design that provokes criticality and reflection in second screening contexts

"I've been manipulated!":designing second screen experiences for critical viewing of reality TV

The recent proliferation of a reality TV genre that focusses on welfare recipients has led to concerns that prime-time media experiences are exacerbating misconceptions, and stifling critical debate, around major societal issues such as welfare reform and poverty. Motivated by arguments that ‘second screening’ practices offer opportunities to engage viewers with issues of political concern, we describe the design and evaluation of two smartphone apps that facilitate and promote more critical live-viewing of reality TV. Our apps, Spotting Guide and Moral Compass, encourage users to identify, categorise, tag and filter patterns and tropes within reality TV, as well as reinterpret social media posts associated with their broadcast. We show that such interactions encourage critical thinking around typical editing and production techniques and foster co-discussion and reflection amongst viewers. We discuss, more broadly, how these interactions encourage users to identify the wider consequences and framings of reality TV, and offer implications and considerations for design that provokes criticality and reflection in second screening contexts

Prevalence and Progression of Ametropias in Medical Students

Background: Uncorrected refractive errors (Myopia, Hyperopia and Astigmatism) are one of the main causes of poor vision, attributing to 43% of vision deficiencies. Myopia is the most common visual disorder in the world and can progress up until the age of 20-25, when many people are in university. The etiological factors that cause myopia are still unclear and deserve to be studied. Our aim was to identify the prevalence of ametropias and self-perception of ophthalmic health in medical students at the Centro Universitário Saúde ABC/FMABC. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study with data collected at Centro Universitário Saúde ABC/FMABC from medical students. A total of 232 students participated in the survey, from the 1st to the 4th year of study. Data was obtained through a questionnaire, which evaluates ophthalmologic health, ametropia, and self-perception. Results: It was observed that 74.57% of the students had some type of ametropia, myopia being the most recurrent (59.05%). The study shows significant data of an increase in the grade of students from 1st to 4th grade throughout college. It was observed that the average daily study time of the students was 9.68 hours and abuse in the use of electronic devices. Conclusion: This study presented a high prevalence of ametropias among medical students at the Centro Universitário ABC/FMABC, in addition to a high prevalence of multifactorial myopia and an increased need to update their diopters (degrees) during the course of university

Real world hospital costs following stress echocardiography in the UK: a costing study from the EVAREST/BSE-NSTEP multi-entre study

Background: Stress echocardiography is widely used to detect coronary artery disease, but little evidence on downstream hospital costs in real-world practice is available. We examined how stress echocardiography accuracy and downstream hospital costs vary across NHS hospitals and identifed key factors that afect costs to help inform future clinical planning and guidelines. Methods: Data on 7636 patients recruited from 31 NHS hospitals within the UK between 2014 and 2020 as part of EVAREST/BSE-NSTEP clinical study, were used. Data included all diagnostic tests, procedures, and hospital admissions for 12 months after a stress echocardiogram and were costed using the NHS national unit costs. A decision tree was built to illustrate the clinical pathway and estimate average downstream hospital costs. Multi-level regression analysis was performed to identify variation in accuracy and costs at both patient, procedural, and hospital level. Linear regression and extrapolation were used to estimate annual hospital cost-savings associated with increasing predictive accuracy at hospital and national level. Results: Stress echocardiography accuracy varied with patient, hospital and operator characteristics. Hypertension, presence of wall motion abnormalities and higher number of hospital cardiology outpatient attendances annually reduced accuracy, adjusted odds ratio of 0.78 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.93), 0.27 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.48), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 0.99) respectively, whereas a prior myocardial infarction, angiotensin receptor blocker medication, and greater operator experience increased accuracy, adjusted odds ratio of 1.77 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.33), 1.64 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.22), and 1.06 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.09) respectively. Average downstream costs were £646 per patient (SD 1796) with signifcant variation across hospitals. The average downstream costs between the 31 hospitals varied from £384–1730 per patient. False positive and false negative tests were associated with average downstream costs of £1446 (SD £601) and £4192 (SD 3332) respectively, driven by increased non-elective hospital admissions, adjusted odds ratio 2.48 (95% CI 1.08 to 5.66), 21.06 (95% CI 10.41 to 42.59) respectively. We estimated that an increase in accuracy by 1 percentage point could save the NHS in the UK £3.2 million annually. Conclusion: This study provides real-world evidence of downstream costs associated with stress echocardiography practice in the UK and estimates how improvements in accuracy could impact healthcare expenditure in the NHS. A real-world downstream costing approach could be adopted more widely in evaluation of imaging tests and interventions to refect actual value for money and support realistic planning

Genetic Overlap Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Bipolar Disorder Implicates the MARK2 and VAC14 Genes

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and bipolar disorder (BIP) are complex traits influenced by numerous common genetic variants, most of which remain to be detected. Clinical and epidemiological evidence suggest that AD and BIP are related. However, it is not established if this relation is of genetic origin. Here, we applied statistical methods based on the conditional false discovery rate (FDR) framework to detect genetic overlap between AD and BIP and utilized this overlap to increase the power to identify common genetic variants associated with either or both traits. Methods: We obtained genome wide association studies data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project part 1 (17,008 AD cases and 37,154 controls) and the Psychiatric Genetic Consortium Bipolar Disorder Working Group (20,352 BIP cases and 31,358 controls). We used conditional QQ-plots to assess overlap in common genetic variants between AD and BIP. We exploited the genetic overlap to re-rank test-statistics for AD and BIP and improve detection of genetic variants using the conditional FDR framework. Results: Conditional QQ-plots demonstrated a polygenic overlap between AD and BIP. Using conditional FDR, we identified one novel genomic locus associated with AD, and nine novel loci associated with BIP. Further, we identified two novel loci jointly associated with AD and BIP implicating the MARK2 gene (lead SNP rs10792421, conjunctional FDR=0.030, same direction of effect) and the VAC14 gene (lead SNP rs11649476, conjunctional FDR=0.022, opposite direction of effect). Conclusions: We found polygenic overlap between AD and BIP and identified novel loci for each trait and two jointly associated loci. Further studies should examine if the shared loci implicating the MARK2 and VAC14 genes could explain parts of the shared and distinct features of AD and BIP

The genetics of the mood disorder spectrum:genome-wide association analyses of over 185,000 cases and 439,000 controls

Background Mood disorders (including major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder) affect 10-20% of the population. They range from brief, mild episodes to severe, incapacitating conditions that markedly impact lives. Despite their diagnostic distinction, multiple approaches have shown considerable sharing of risk factors across the mood disorders. Methods To clarify their shared molecular genetic basis, and to highlight disorder-specific associations, we meta-analysed data from the latest Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) genome-wide association studies of major depression (including data from 23andMe) and bipolar disorder, and an additional major depressive disorder cohort from UK Biobank (total: 185,285 cases, 439,741 controls; non-overlapping N = 609,424). Results Seventy-three loci reached genome-wide significance in the meta-analysis, including 15 that are novel for mood disorders. More genome-wide significant loci from the PGC analysis of major depression than bipolar disorder reached genome-wide significance. Genetic correlations revealed that type 2 bipolar disorder correlates strongly with recurrent and single episode major depressive disorder. Systems biology analyses highlight both similarities and differences between the mood disorders, particularly in the mouse brain cell-types implicated by the expression patterns of associated genes. The mood disorders also differ in their genetic correlation with educational attainment – positive in bipolar disorder but negative in major depressive disorder. Conclusions The mood disorders share several genetic associations, and can be combined effectively to increase variant discovery. However, we demonstrate several differences between these disorders. Analysing subtypes of major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder provides evidence for a genetic mood disorders spectrum

Bipolar multiplex families have an increased burden of common risk variants for psychiatric disorders.

Multiplex families with a high prevalence of a psychiatric disorder are often examined to identify rare genetic variants with large effect sizes. In the present study, we analysed whether the risk for bipolar disorder (BD) in BD multiplex families is influenced by common genetic variants. Furthermore, we investigated whether this risk is conferred mainly by BD-specific risk variants or by variants also associated with the susceptibility to schizophrenia or major depression. In total, 395 individuals from 33 Andalusian BD multiplex families (166 BD, 78 major depressive disorder, 151 unaffected) as well as 438 subjects from an independent, BD case/control cohort (161 unrelated BD, 277 unrelated controls) were analysed. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for BD, schizophrenia (SCZ), and major depression were calculated and compared between the cohorts. Both the familial BD cases and unaffected family members had higher PRS for all three psychiatric disorders than the independent controls, with BD and SCZ being significant after correction for multiple testing, suggesting a high baseline risk for several psychiatric disorders in the families. Moreover, familial BD cases showed significantly higher BD PRS than unaffected family members and unrelated BD cases. A plausible hypothesis is that, in multiplex families with a general increase in risk for psychiatric disease, BD development is attributable to a high burden of common variants that confer a specific risk for BD. The present analyses demonstrated that common genetic risk variants for psychiatric disorders are likely to contribute to the high incidence of affective psychiatric disorders in the multiplex families. However, the PRS explained only part of the observed phenotypic variance, and rare variants might have also contributed to disease development

Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes

publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes journaltitle: Cell articlelink: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.046 content_type: article copyright: © 2018 Elsevier Inc

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials