A sham-controlled study of neurofeedback for pain management

Background: Neurofeedback (NFB) attempts to alter the brain’s electrophysiological activity and has shown potential as a pain management technique. Existing studies, however, often lack appropriate control groups or fail to assess whether electrophysiological activity has been successfully regulated. The current study is a randomized controlled trial comparing changes in brain activity and pain during NFB with those of a sham-control group. Methods: An experimental pain paradigm in healthy participants was used to provide optimal control of pain sensation. Twenty four healthy participants were blind randomized to receive either 10 × NFB (with real EEG feedback) or 10 × sham (with false EEG feedback) sessions during noxious cold stimulation. Prior to actual NFB training, training protocols were individually determined for each participant based on a comparison of an initial 32-channel qEEG assessment administered at both baseline and during an experimental pain task. Each individual protocol was based on the electrode site and frequency band that showed the greatest change in amplitude during pain, with alpha or theta up-regulation at various electrode sites (especially Pz) the most common protocols chosen. During the NFB sessions themselves, pain was assessed at multiple times during each session on a 0–10 rating scale, and ANOVA was used to examine changes in pain ratings and EEG amplitude both across and during sessions for both NFB and sham groups. Results: For pain, ANOVA trend analysis found a significant general linear decrease in pain across the 10 sessions (p = 0.015). However, no significant main or interaction effects of group were observed suggesting decreases in pain occurred independently of NFB. For EEG, there was a significant During Session X Group interaction (p = 0.004), which indicated that EEG amplitude at the training site was significantly closer to the target amplitude for the NFB compared to the sham group during painful stimulation, but this was only the case at the beginning of the cold task. Conclusion: While these results must be interpreted within the context of an experimental pain model, they underline the importance of including an appropriate comparison group to avoid attributing naturally occurring changes to therapeutic effects

E-cigarette campaign evaluation survey: metrics on smoking habits, e-cigarette use and attitudes towards e-cigarettes

This survey was used as part of the evaluation of a smoking cessation/support health marketing educational campaign about the relative safety of e-cigarettes. This campaign ran in 2017 and 2018 in Greater Manchester. Publication of the findings from this evaluation, can be found: https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/22/7/1148/5677516. This survey has been reduced to focus and share the metrics used to understand smoking behaviours, e-cigarette use and attitudes and perceptions of e-cigarettes. Commercially sensitive metrics related to the campaign themselves have been removed

Evaluation of mass media campaign of early cancer diagnosis, targeting older adults in Northern Ireland: a cross-sectional study

</p

What drives public perceptions of e-cigarettes? A mixed-methods study exploring reasons behind adults' perceptions of e-cigarettes in Northern England.

BACKGROUND Despite growing evidence that e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than cigarettes, perceptions of equal or more harm have increased worldwide. This study aimed to identify the most common reasons behind adults' perceptions of the (i) relative harm of e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes and (ii) effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. METHODS Adults (N = 1646) from Northern England were recruited through online panels from December-March 2017/2018, using quota sampling to guarantee socio-demographic representativeness. Qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses was performed with codes representing reasons for a given perception about e-cigarettes. Percentages of participants who gave each reason for each perception were calculated. RESULTS 823 (49.9%) participants agreed that e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes, 283 (17.1%) disagreed, and 540 (32.8%) were undecided. The most common reasons for agreeing that e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes were that they produce no smoke (29.8%) and fewer toxins (28.9%). Those who disagreed were most concerned about a perceived lack of trustworthy research (23.7%) and safety issues (20.8%). Lacking knowledge (50.4%) was the most common reason for being undecided. 815 (49.5%) of participants agreed that e-cigarettes were an effective smoking cessation aid, 216 (13.2%) disagreed, and 615 (37.4%) were undecided. The most common reasons participants gave for agreeing were related to e-cigarettes being successful smoking replacements (50.3%) and advice from family, friends or health professionals (20.0%). Respondents who disagreed were most concerned about e-cigarettes being addictive (34.3%) and containing nicotine (15.3%). Lacking knowledge (45.2%) was the most common reason for being undecided. CONCLUSIONS Negative perceptions of e-cigarette harm were driven by concerns about a perceived lack of research and safety issues. Adults who viewed e-cigarettes as ineffective for smoking cessation feared that they perpetuate nicotine addiction. Campaigns and guidelines that address these concerns may help promote informed perceptions