Soy consumption and risk of COPD and respiratory symptoms: a case-control study in Japan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To investigate the relationship between soy consumption, COPD risk and the prevalence of respiratory symptoms, a case-control study was conducted in Japan.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 278 eligible patients (244 men and 34 women), aged 50–75 years with COPD diagnosed within the past four years, were referred by respiratory physicians, while 340 controls (272 men and 68 women) were recruited from the community. All participants underwent spirometric measurements of respiratory function. Information on demographics, lifestyle characteristics and habitual food consumption was obtained using a structured questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Total soy consumption was positively correlated with observed lung function measures. The mean soy intake was significantly higher among controls (59.98, SD 50.23 g/day) than cases (44.84, SD 28.5 g/day). A significant reduction in COPD risk was evident for highest versus lowest quartile of daily intake of total soybean products, with adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.392, 95% CI 0.194–0.793, <it>p </it>for trend 0.001. Similar decreases in COPD risk were associated with frequent and higher intake of soy foods such as tofu and bean sprouts, whereas respiratory symptoms were inversely associated with high consumption of soy foods, especially for breathlessness (OR 0.989, 95% CI 0.982–0.996).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Increasing soy consumption was associated with a decreased risk of COPD and breathlessness.</p

The U.S. training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health

Abstract Background The science of dissemination and implementation (D&amp;I) is advancing the knowledge base for how best to integrate evidence-based interventions within clinical and community settings and how to recast the nature or conduct of the research itself to make it more relevant and actionable in those settings. While the field is growing, there are only a few training programs for D&amp;I research; this is an important avenue to help build the field’s capacity. To improve the United States’ capacity for D&amp;I research, the National Institutes of Health and Veterans Health Administration collaborated to develop a five-day training institute for postdoctoral level applicants aspiring to advance this science. Methods We describe the background, goals, structure, curriculum, application process, trainee evaluation, and future plans for the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH). Results The TIDIRH used a five-day residential immersion to maximize opportunities for trainees and faculty to interact. The train-the-trainer-like approach was intended to equip participants with materials that they could readily take back to their home institutions to increase interest and further investment in D&amp;I. The TIDIRH curriculum included a balance of structured large group discussions and interactive small group sessions. Thirty-five of 266 applicants for the first annual training institute were accepted from a variety of disciplines, including psychology (12 trainees); medicine (6 trainees); epidemiology (5 trainees); health behavior/health education (4 trainees); and 1 trainee each from education &amp; human development, health policy and management, health services research, public health studies, public policy and social work, with a maximum of two individuals from any one institution. The institute was rated as very helpful by attendees, and by six months after the institute, a follow-up survey (97% return rate) revealed that 72% had initiated a new grant proposal in D&amp;I research; 28% had received funding, and 77% had used skills from TIDIRH to influence their peers from different disciplines about D&amp;I research through building local research networks, organizing formal presentations and symposia, teaching and by leading interdisciplinary teams to conduct D&amp;I research. Conclusions The initial TIDIRH training was judged successful by trainee evaluation at the conclusion of the week’s training and six-month follow-up, and plans are to continue and possibly expand the TIDIRH in coming years. Strengths are seen as the residential format, quality of the faculty and their flexibility in adjusting content to meet trainee needs, and the highlighting of concrete D&amp;I examples by the local host institution, which rotates annually. Lessons learned and plans for future TIDIRH trainings are summarized

Cross-sectional survey of a sample of UK primary care dental professionals' experiences of sharps injuries and perception of access to occupational health support

Background: The 2013 Sharps Regulations were introduced to minimise the risk of sharps injuries and blood borne virus transmission throughout healthcare. Occupational health (OH) services are pivotal for helping employers implement these regulations. Despite this, no research has been conducted on the prevalence of sharps injuries, underreporting of injuries or access to OH among primary care dental professionals in the UK since 2013. Aim: To estimate the prevalence of sharps injuries, the level of underreporting and of self-reported access to an OH service both for the care of sharps injuries and for general health and wellbeing. Method: A cross-sectional survey was administered at the 2017 British Dental Association (BDA) Conference and Exhibition in Manchester, and at the 2017 BDA Scottish Conference and Exhibition in Glasgow. The survey covered questions relating to sharps injuries and OH support. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 22 (IBM Corp., 2013). Results: A total of 796 delegates participated, of whom 166 (20.8%) had experienced a sharps injury in the past year and 58 (35%) did not report the incident. Of the participants, 190 (23.9%) reported no, or uncertain, access to OH support. Most respondents' practices had a sharps safety policy (771; 96.9%), but fewer (611; 76.8%) had received training on the prevention of sharps injuries and neither policy nor training were associated with incident reporting. Conclusion: Despite the introduction of the sharps regulations, sharps injuries and underreporting of injuries remain prevalent among those practising in primary dental care. Our results also suggest that there are significant shortfalls in OH support, at a time when changes to guidance on health clearance and management of BBV infected healthcare workers, in addition to sharps injury management, increase the need for such services

A systematic review of the role of vitamin insufficiencies and supplementation in COPD

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pulmonary inflammation, oxidants-antioxidants imbalance, as well as innate and adaptive immunity have been proposed as playing a key role in the development of COPD. The role of vitamins, as assessed either by food frequency questionnaires or measured in serum levels, have been reported to improve pulmonary function, reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms. Vitamin supplements have therefore been proposed to be a potentially useful additive to COPD therapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature review was performed on the association of vitamins and COPD. The role of vitamin supplements in COPD was then evaluated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of this review showed that various vitamins (vitamin C, D, E, A, beta and alpha carotene) are associated with improvement in features of COPD such as symptoms, exacerbations and pulmonary function. High vitamin intake would probably reduce the annual decline of FEV1. There were no studies that showed benefit from vitamin supplementation in improved symptoms, decreased hospitalization or pulmonary function.</p

Practices participating in a dental PBRN have substantial and advantageous diversity even though as a group they have much in common with dentists at large

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice-based research networks offer important opportunities to move recent advances into routine clinical practice. If their findings are not only generalizable to dental practices at large, but can also elucidate how practice characteristics are related to treatment outcome, their importance is even further elevated. Our objective was to determine whether we met a key objective for The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN): to recruit a diverse range of practitioner-investigators interested in doing DPBRN studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>DPBRN participants completed an enrollment questionnaire about their practices and themselves. To date, more than 1100 practitioners from the five participating regions have completed the questionnaire. The regions consist of: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates, and Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden). We tested the hypothesis that there are statistically significant differences in key characteristics among DPBRN practices, based on responses from dentists who participated in DPBRN's first network-wide study (n = 546).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were statistically significant, substantive regional differences among DPBRN-participating dentists, their practices, and their patient populations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although as a group, participants have much in common with practices at large; their substantial diversity offers important advantages, such as being able to evaluate how practice differences may affect treatment outcomes, while simultaneously offering generalizability to dentists at large. This should help foster knowledge transfer in both the research-to-practice and practice-to-research directions.</p

Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): A systematic review

Background: Over 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF. Methods: We undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes. Findings: We identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF. Conclusions: Differences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD4201502761