A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

Consensus-based care recommendations for adults with myotonic dystrophy type 1

Purpose of review Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a severe, progressive genetic disease that affects between 1 in 3,000 and 8,000 individuals globally. No evidence-based guideline exists to inform the care of these patients, and most do not have access to multidisciplinary care centers staffed by experienced professionals, creating a clinical care deficit. Recent findings The Myotonic Dystrophy Foundation (MDF) recruited 66 international clinicians experienced in DM1 patient care to develop consensus-based care recommendations. MDF created a 2-step methodology for the project using elements of the Single Text Procedure and the Nominal Group Technique. The process generated a 4-page Quick Reference Guide and a comprehensive, 55-page document that provides clinical care recommendations for 19 discrete body systems and/or care considerations. Summary The resulting recommendations are intended to help standardize and elevate care for this patient population and reduce variability in clinical trial and study environments. Described as “one of the more variable diseases found in medicine,” myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is an autosomal dominant, triplet-repeat expansion disorder that affects somewhere between 1:3,000 and 1:8,000 individuals worldwide.1 There is a modest association between increased repeat expansion and disease severity, as evidenced by the average age of onset and overall morbidity of the condition. An expansion of over 35 repeats typically indicates an unstable and expanding mutation. An expansion of 50 repeats or higher is consistent with a diagnosis of DM1. DM1 is a multisystem and heterogeneous disease characterized by distal weakness, atrophy, and myotonia, as well as symptoms in the heart, brain, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine, and respiratory systems. Symptoms may occur at any age. The severity of the condition varies widely among affected individuals, even among members of the same family. Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines do not currently exist to guide the treatment of DM1 patients. As a result, the international patient community reports varied levels of care and care quality, and difficulty accessing care adequate to manage their symptoms, unless they have access to multidisciplinary neuromuscular clinics. Consensus-based care recommendations can help standardize and improve the quality of care received by DM1 patients and assist clinicians who may not be familiar with the significant variability, range of symptoms, and severity of the disease. Care recommendations can also improve the landscape for clinical trial success by eliminating some of the inconsistencies in patient care to allow more accurate understanding of the benefit of potential therapies

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions 1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process 2. In April 2020, an influential paper 3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

DATA AVAILABILITY : All data and study material are provided either in the Supplementary information or through the two online repositories (OSF and Tableau Public, both accessible via https://psyarxiv.com/58udn). No code was used for analyses in this work.Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.The National Science Foundation; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); National Science Foundation grants; the European Research Council; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.http://www.nature.com/naturehj2024Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)Non

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

A randomized controlled trial of Koru: a mindfulness program for college students and other emerging adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of Koru, a mindfulness training program for college students and other emerging adults. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety students (66% female, 62% white, 71% graduate students) participated between Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial. It was hypothesized that Koru, compared with a wait-list control group, would reduce perceived stress and sleep problems, and increase mindfulness, self-compassion, and gratitude. RESULTS: As hypothesized, results showed significant Group (Koru, Wait-List)×Time (Pre, Post) interactions for improvements in perceived stress (F[1, 76.40]=4.50, p=.037, d=.45), sleep problems (F [1, 79.49]=4.71, p=.033, d=.52), mindfulness (F [1, 79.09]=26.80, p CONCLUSIONS: Results support the effectiveness of the Koru program for emerging adults in the university setting

Anhedonia and increased evoked immune response

There is a growing body of evidence supporting the association between immune processes and psychopathology, including major depressive disorder (MDD). However, lack of diagnostic specificity has given rise to a search for specific symptom types, as opposed to more heterogeneous categorical diagnoses, linked to increased inflammation. One such symptom could be anhedonia, which is not only a key feature of MDD, but also a pervasive and persistent transdiagnostic symptom. To evaluate the specific role of anhedonia as well as categorical MDD diagnoses, we examined endotoxin-evoked immune responses in vitro in relation to current levels of anhedonia and history of recurrent MDD (rMDD) in a sample of adults recruited from the community. A total of 39 participants either had a history of rMDD (n ​= ​20) or no lifetime history of any MDD episodes (n ​= ​19). The average age of participants was 36.81 years and the majority were women (87.2%) and Caucasian (76.3%). We found that higher levels of current anhedonia, but not history of rMDD, were associated with increased lipopolysaccharide-stimulated levels of inflammatory markers even after we statistically adjusted for the potential influence of participants’ demographic (age, sex, ethnicity, income) and physiological (body temperature, BMI) characteristics, current symptoms of depression and anxiety, and the time of day of the sample collection. These findings highlight the relation of anhedonia specifically, rather than rMDD more generally, with inflammatory processes and identify endotoxin-stimulated cytokine production as a plausible biological marker of current anhedonia