Conectar
Breast cancer survivors have an increased risk for chronic fatigue and altered gut microbiota composition, both with negative health and quality of life affects. Exercise modestly improves fatigue and is linked to gut microbial diversity and production of beneficial metabolites. Studies suggest that gut microbiota composition is a potential mechanism underlying fatigue response to exercise. Randomised controlled trials testing the effects of exercise on the gut microbiome are limited and there is a scarcity of findings specific to breast cancer survivors. The objective of this study is to determine if fitness-related modifications to gut microbiota occur and, if so, mediate the effects of aerobic exercise on fatigue response.
The research is a randomised controlled trial among breast cancer survivors aged 18–74 with fatigue. The primary aim is to determine the effects of aerobic exercise training compared with an attention control on gut microbiota composition. The secondary study aims are to test if exercise training (1) affects the gut microbiota composition directly and/or indirectly through inflammation (serum cytokines), autonomic nervous system (heart rate variability) or hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis mediators (hair cortisol assays), and (2) effects on fatigue are direct and/or indirect through changes in the gut microbiota composition. All participants receive a standardised controlled diet. Assessments occur at baseline, 5 weeks, 10 weeks and 15 weeks (5 weeks post intervention completion). Faecal samples collect the gut microbiome and 16S gene sequencing will identify the microbiome. Fatigue is measured by a 13-item multidimensional fatigue scale.
The University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study on 15 May 2019, UAB IRB#30000320. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board convenes annually or more often if indicated. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04088708.
Menstrual health is essential for gender equity and the well-being of women and girls. Qualitative research has described the burden of poor menstrual health on health and education; however, these impacts have not been quantified, curtailing investment. The Adolescent Menstrual Experiences and Health Cohort (AMEHC) Study aims to describe menstrual health and its trajectories across adolescence, and quantify the relationships between menstrual health and girls’ health and education in Khulna, Bangladesh.
AMEHC is a prospective longitudinal cohort of 2016 adolescent girls recruited at the commencement of class 6 (secondary school, mean age=12) across 101 schools selected through a proportional random sampling approach. Each year, the cohort will be asked to complete a survey capturing (1) girls’ menstrual health and experiences, (2) support for menstrual health, and (3) health and education outcomes. Survey questions were refined through qualitative research, cognitive interviews and pilot survey in the year preceding the cohort. Girls’ guardians will be surveyed at baseline and wave 2 to capture their perspectives and household demographics. Annual assessments will capture schools’ water, sanitation and hygiene, and support for menstruation and collect data on participants’ education, including school attendance and performance (in maths, literacy). Cohort enrolment and baseline survey commenced in February 2023. Follow-up waves are scheduled for 2024, 2025 and 2026, with plans for extension. A nested subcohort will follow 406 post-menarche girls at 2-month intervals throughout 2023 (May, August, October) to describe changes across menstrual periods. This protocol outlines a priori hypotheses regarding the impacts of menstrual health to be tested through the cohort.
AMEHC has ethical approval from the Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee (369/22) and BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB-06 July 22-024). Study materials and outputs will be available open access through peer-reviewed publication and study web pages.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.
The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.
The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.
Many people living with dementia experience sleep disturbance and there are no known effective treatments. Non-pharmacological treatment options should be the first-line sleep management. For family carers, relatives’ sleep disturbance leads to interruption of their sleep, low mood and breakdown of care. Our team developed and delivered DREAMS START (Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives), a multimodal non-pharmacological intervention, showing it to be feasible and acceptable. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to establish whether DREAMS START is clinically cost-effective in reducing sleep disturbances in people living with dementia living at home compared with usual care.
We will recruit 370 participant dyads (people living with dementia and family carers) from memory services, community mental health teams and the Join Dementia Research Website in England. Those meeting inclusion criteria will be randomised (1:1) either to DREAMS START or to usual treatment. DREAMS START is a six-session (1 hour/session), manualised intervention delivered every 1–2 weeks by supervised, non-clinically trained graduates. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4 months and 8 months with the primary outcome being the Sleep Disorders Inventory score at 8 months. Secondary outcomes for the person with dementia (all proxy) include quality of life, daytime sleepiness, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes for the family carer include quality of life, sleep disturbance, mood, burden and service use and caring/work activity. Analyses will be intention-to-treat and we will conduct a process evaluation.
London—Camden & Kings Cross Ethics Committee (20/LO/0894) approved the study. We will disseminate our findings in high-impact peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. This research has the potential to improve sleep and quality of life for people living with dementia and their carers, in a feasible and scalable intervention.
Early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children is critical to prevent deterioration to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a state where the body’s insulin levels are critically low resulting in the use of fat for fuel and the accumulation of ketones. DKA is a life-threatening emergency where dehydration and cerebral oedema can quickly develop and lead to death. Despite treatment, DKA also has harmful impacts on cognition and brain development. Most children admitted to a hospital with DKA see their general practitioner in the week leading up to their admission. A delay in referral from general practice can result in delays in commencing lifesaving insulin therapy. Prior systematic reviews have explored publicity campaign interventions aimed at recognising type 1 diabetes earlier; however, no reviews have explored these interventions targeted at reducing the delay after presentation to the general practitioner. This systematic review aims to summarise interventions that target the diagnostic delay emerging from general practice and to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing DKA admissions.
Six databases (Ovid (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) and Google Scholar) will be searched to identify studies exploring interventions to reduce diagnostic delay in children with type 1 diabetes, and hence DKA, in general practice. The primary outcome will be the number of DKA admissions to a hospital following a delay in general practice. The secondary outcome will be the behaviour of general practitioners with respect to urgent referral of children with type 1 diabetes. Title, abstract and full-text screening for exclusion and inclusion of publications will be completed by two independent reviewers. Any risks of bias within individual studies will be assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Our confidence in the overall body of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
The systematic review will be disseminated via publication and potentially in conference presentations. Ethics is not required for a systematic review of secondary data.
CRD42023412504
by Bryan McCann, Simon C. Hunter, Kareena McAloney-Kocaman, Paul McCarthy, Jan Smith, Eileen Calveley
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic had wide-ranging negative impacts on mental health. The pandemic also placed extraordinary strain on frontline workers who were required to continue working and putting themselves at risk to provide essential services at a time when their normal support mechanisms may not have been available. This paper presents an evaluation of the Time for You service, a rapidly developed and implemented intervention aimed at providing frontline workers with quick access to flexible online mental health support. Time for You provided service users with three service options: self-guided online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) resources; guided engagement with online CBT resources; 1–1 psychological therapy with trainee sport and exercise psychologists and trainee health psychologists. A process evaluation informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research considered service fidelity, adaptations, perceived impact, reach, barriers, and facilitators. Interviews with project managers (n = 5), delivery staff (n = 10), and service users (n = 14) explored perceptions of the service implementation and outcomes, supported by data regarding engagement with the online CBT platform (n = 217). Findings indicated that service users valued the flexibility of the service and the speed with which they were able to access support. The support offered by Trainee Psychologists was perceived to be of high quality, and the service was perceived by service users to have improved mental health and wellbeing. The rapid implementation contributed to issues regarding appropriate service user screening that led to trainee psychologists being unable to provide the service users with the support they needed as the presenting issues were outside of trainees’ competencies. Overall, the findings suggest that interventions offering flexible, online psychological support to frontline workers can be an effective model for future interventions. Trainee psychologists are also able to play an important role in delivering such services when clear screening processes are in place.
FreshRSS 