Conectar
Quantify disparities and identify correlates and predictors of ‘wellness’ supplement use among nurses during the first year of the pandemic.
Longitudinal secondary analysis of Nurses' Health Studies 2 and 3 and Growing Up Today Study data.
Sample included 36,518 total participants, 12,044 of which were nurses, who completed surveys during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020 to April 2021). Analyses were conducted in March 2023. Modified Poisson models were used to estimate disparities in ‘wellness’ supplement use between nurses and non-healthcare workers and, among nurses only, to quantify associations with workplace-related predictors (occupational discrimination, PPE access, workplace setting) and psychosocial predictors (depression/anxiety, county-level COVID-19 mortality). Models included race/ethnicity, gender identity, age and cohort as covariates.
Nurses were significantly more likely to use all types of supplements than non-healthcare workers. Lacking personal protective equipment and experiencing occupational discrimination were significantly associated with new immune supplement use. Depression increased the risk of using weight loss, energy and immune supplements.
Nurses' disproportionate use of ‘wellness’ supplements during the COVID-19 pandemic may be related to workplace and psychosocial stressors. Given well-documented risks of harm from the use of ‘wellness’ supplements, the use of these products by nurses is of concern.
‘Wellness’ supplements promoting weight loss, increased energy, boosted immunity and cleansing of organs are omnipresent in today's health-focused culture, though their use has been associated with harm. This is of added concern among nurses given their risk of COVID-19 infection at work. Our study highlighted the risk factors associated with use of these products (lacking PPE and experiencing occupational discrimination). Findings support prior research suggesting a need for greater public health policy and education around the use of ‘wellness’ supplements.
STROBE guidelines were followed throughout manuscript.
No patient or public contribution was involved.
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
FreshRSS 