Análisis estructural de la Escala de Autoeficacia para Investigar en estudiantes de posgrado

This research aims to examine the internal structure of the Research Self-efficacy Scale in the context of Puerto Rico by comparingtwo models: the original model of the scale composed of four factors and a bifactor model in which a general factor explainsmore significant variance in the items than the four factors of the first model. The sample consisted of 357 master and doctoral students (275 women and 82 men). After the psychometric analysis, the multidimensional proposal did not obtain empirical support,and the best interpretation of the scale is a one-dimensional measure of the research self-efficacy. This would indicate that self-perceived competencies in the different areas evaluated by the scale are directly associated with each other, which would designate that the learning of research tasks would not be developed by areas. The practical implications of the findings are discussed.Esta investigación se propone examinar la estructura interna de la Escala de Autoeficacia para Investigar en el contexto puertorriqueño mediante la comparación de dos modelos: el modelo original de la escala compuesto por cuatro factores y un modelo bifactor en el cual un factor general explica mayor varianza en los ítems que los cuatro factores del primer modelo. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 357 estudiantes de maestría y doctorado (275 mujeres y 82 hombres). Luego de los análisis  psicométricos, la propuesta multidimensional no obtuvo respaldo empírico y la mejor interpretación de la escala es una medida unidimensional de autoeficacia para la investigación. Esto indicaría que las competencias autopercibidas en las diferentes áreas evaluadas por la escala se asocian directamente entre sí, lo que señalaría que el aprendizaje de las tareas de investigación no se desarrollaría por áreas. Se discuten las implicancias prácticas de los hallazgos

Escala de Cansancio Emocional: Análisis psicométrico en estudiantes de posgrado en Puerto Rico

This research analyzes the psychometric properties of the Emotional Exhaustion Scale and confirms the unifactorial structure of the scale. 442 master’s and doctoral students from 21 to 55 years old participated in the research (M = 29.52; DE = 5.63). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, invariance analysis and internal consistency analysis were performed. Factor analyses confirmed theunidimensional structure of the scale (appropriate fit indexes), and Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients were adequate (α = .883; ω = .883). It was concluded that the Emotional Exhaustion Scale has good psychometric properties to be used in postgraduate students in Puerto Rico and is a practical and helpful tool for clinical and academic work in universities. The practical implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. Esta investigación analiza las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Cansancio Emocional y confirma su estructura unidimensional. Participaron en la investigación 442 estudiantes de maestría y doctorado de 21 a 55 años (M = 29.52; DE = 5.63). Se realizaron análisis factoriales exploratorios y confirmatorios, análisis de invarianza y análisis de consistencia interna. Los análisis factoriales confirmaron la estructura unidimensional del instrumento (índices de ajuste apropiados) y los coeficientes alfa de Cronbach y omega de McDonald fueron adecuados (α = .883; ω = .883). Se concluye que la Escala de Cansancio Emocional cuenta con las propiedades psicométricas adecuadas para ser utilizada en estudiantes de posgrado de Puerto Rico y es una herramienta práctica y útil en el quehacer clínico y académico de las universidades. Se discuten las implicancias prácticas y limitaciones de los hallazgos

Obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: interim analysis from a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common type of chronic liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis. Obeticholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor agonist, has been shown to improve the histological features of NASH. Here we report results from a planned interim analysis of an ongoing, phase 3 study of obeticholic acid for NASH. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adult patients with definite NASH,non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score of at least 4, and fibrosis stages F2–F3, or F1 with at least oneaccompanying comorbidity, were randomly assigned using an interactive web response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive oral placebo, obeticholic acid 10 mg, or obeticholic acid 25 mg daily. Patients were excluded if cirrhosis, other chronic liver disease, elevated alcohol consumption, or confounding conditions were present. The primary endpointsfor the month-18 interim analysis were fibrosis improvement (≥1 stage) with no worsening of NASH, or NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, with the study considered successful if either primary endpoint was met. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat, in patients with fibrosis stage F2–F3 who received at least one dose of treatment and reached, or would have reached, the month 18 visit by the prespecified interim analysis cutoff date. The study also evaluated other histological and biochemical markers of NASH and fibrosis, and safety. This study is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02548351, and EudraCT, 20150-025601-6. Findings Between Dec 9, 2015, and Oct 26, 2018, 1968 patients with stage F1–F3 fibrosis were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment; 931 patients with stage F2–F3 fibrosis were included in the primary analysis (311 in the placebo group, 312 in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 308 in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). The fibrosis improvement endpoint was achieved by 37 (12%) patients in the placebo group, 55 (18%) in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group (p=0·045), and 71 (23%) in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group (p=0·0002). The NASH resolution endpoint was not met (25 [8%] patients in the placebo group, 35 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group [p=0·18], and 36 [12%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group [p=0·13]). In the safety population (1968 patients with fibrosis stages F1–F3), the most common adverse event was pruritus (123 [19%] in the placebo group, 183 [28%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 336 [51%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group); incidence was generally mild to moderate in severity. The overall safety profile was similar to that in previous studies, and incidence of serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups (75 [11%] patients in the placebo group, 72 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 93 [14%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). Interpretation Obeticholic acid 25 mg significantly improved fibrosis and key components of NASH disease activity among patients with NASH. The results from this planned interim analysis show clinically significant histological improvement that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. This study is ongoing to assess clinical outcomes

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 cross-country, 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

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive refractory generalised myasthenia gravis (REGAIN): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study

Background Complement is likely to have a role in refractory generalised myasthenia gravis, but no approved therapies specifically target this system. Results from a phase 2 study suggested that eculizumab, a terminal complement inhibitor, produced clinically meaningful improvements in patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive refractory generalised myasthenia gravis. We further assessed the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in this patient population in a phase 3 trial. Methods We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (REGAIN) in 76 hospitals and specialised clinics in 17 countries across North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with a Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 6 or more, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) class II\ue2\u80\u93IV disease, vaccination against Neisseria meningitides, and previous treatment with at least two immunosuppressive therapies or one immunosuppressive therapy and chronic intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange for 12 months without symptom control. Patients with a history of thymoma or thymic neoplasms, thymectomy within 12 months before screening, or use of intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange within 4 weeks before randomisation, or rituximab within 6 months before screening, were excluded. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either intravenous eculizumab or intravenous matched placebo for 26 weeks. Dosing for eculizumab was 900 mg on day 1 and at weeks 1, 2, and 3; 1200 mg at week 4; and 1200 mg given every second week thereafter as maintenance dosing. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-response system with patients stratified to one of four groups based on MGFA disease classification. Where possible, patients were maintained on existing myasthenia gravis therapies and rescue medication was allowed at the study physician's discretion. Patients, investigators, staff, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to week 26 in MG-ADL total score measured by worst-rank ANCOVA. The efficacy population set was defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of study drug, had a valid baseline MG-ADL assessment, and at least one post-baseline MG-ADL assessment. The safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received eculizumab or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01997229. Findings Between April 30, 2014, and Feb 19, 2016, we randomly assigned and treated 125 patients, 62 with eculizumab and 63 with placebo. The primary analysis showed no significant difference between eculizumab and placebo (least-squares mean rank 56\uc2\ub76 [SEM 4\uc2\ub75] vs 68\uc2\ub73 [4\uc2\ub75]; rank-based treatment difference \ue2\u88\u9211\uc2\ub77, 95% CI \ue2\u88\u9224\uc2\ub73 to 0\uc2\ub796; p=0\uc2\ub70698). No deaths or cases of meningococcal infection occurred during the study. The most common adverse events in both groups were headache and upper respiratory tract infection (ten [16%] for both events in the eculizumab group and 12 [19%] for both in the placebo group). Myasthenia gravis exacerbations were reported by six (10%) patients in the eculizumab group and 15 (24%) in the placebo group. Six (10%) patients in the eculizumab group and 12 (19%) in the placebo group required rescue therapy. Interpretation The change in the MG-ADL score was not statistically significant between eculizumab and placebo, as measured by the worst-rank analysis. Eculizumab was well tolerated. The use of a worst-rank analytical approach proved to be an important limitation of this study since the secondary and sensitivity analyses results were inconsistent with the primary endpoint result; further research into the role of complement is needed. Funding Alexion Pharmaceuticals

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health