None.

ObjectiveThe use of financial incentives to promote physical activity (PA) has grown in popularity due in part to technological advances that make it easier to track and reward PA. The purpose of this study was to update the evidence on the effects of incentives on PA in adults.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CCTR, CINAHL and COCH.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCT) published between 2012 and May 2018 examining the impact of incentives on PA.DesignA simple count of studies with positive and null effects (‘vote counting’) was conducted. Random-effects meta-analyses were also undertaken for studies reporting steps per day for intervention and post-intervention periods.Results23 studies involving 6074 participants were included (64.42% female, mean age = 41.20 years). 20 out of 22 studies reported positive intervention effects and four out of 18 reported post-intervention (after incentives withdrawn) benefits. Among the 12 of 23 studies included in the meta-analysis, incentives were associated with increased mean daily step counts during the intervention period (pooled mean difference (MD), 607.1; 95% CI: 422.1 to 792.1). Among the nine of 12 studies with post-intervention daily step count data incentives were associated with increased mean daily step counts (pooled MD, 513.8; 95% CI:312.7 to 714.9).ConclusionDemonstrating rising interest in financial incentives, 23 RCTs were identified. Modest incentives ($1.40 US/day) increased PA for interventions of short and long durations and after incentives were removed, though post-intervention ‘vote counting’ and pooled results did not align. Nonetheless, and contrary to what has been previously reported, these findings suggest a short-term incentive ‘dose’ may promote sustained PA.

BackgroundPhysician retirement planning and timing have important implications for patients, hospitals, and healthcare systems. Unplanned early or late physician retirement can have dire consequences in terms of both patient safety and human resource allocations. This systematic review examined existing evidence on the timing and process of retirement of physicians. Four questions were addressed: (1) When do physicians retire? (2) Why do some physicians retire early? (3) Why do some physicians delay their retirement? (4) What strategies facilitate physician retention and/or retirement planning?MethodsEnglish-language studies were searched in electronic databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, AgeLine, Embase, HealthSTAR, ASSA, and PsycINFO, from inception up to and including March 2016. Included studies were peer-reviewed primary journal articles with quantitative and/or qualitative analyses of physicians’ plans for, and opinions about, retirement. Three reviewers independently assessed each study for methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quantitative studies and Critical Appraisal Tool for qualitative studies, and a fourth reviewer resolved inconsistencies.ResultsIn all, 65 studies were included and analyzed, of which the majority were cross-sectional in design. Qualitative studies were found to be methodologically strong, with credible results deemed relevant to practice. The majority of quantitative studies had adequate sample representativeness, had justified and satisfactory sample size, used appropriate statistical tests, and collected primary data by self-reported survey methods.Physicians commonly reported retiring between 60 and 69 years of age. Excessive workload and burnout were frequently cited reasons for early retirement. Ongoing financial obligations delayed retirement, while strategies to mitigate career dissatisfaction, workplace frustration, and workload pressure supported continuing practice.ConclusionsKnowledge of when physicians plan to retire and how they can transition out of practice has been shown to aid succession planning. Healthcare organizations might consider promoting retirement mentorship programs, resource toolkits, education sessions, and guidance around financial planning for physicians throughout their careers, as well as creating post-retirement opportunities that maintain institutional ties through teaching, mentoring, and peer support.

Background Although it is generally accepted that physical activity reduces the risk for chronic non-communicable disease and mortality, accumulating evidence suggests that occupational physical activity (OPA) may not confer the same health benefits as leisure time physical activity (LTPA). It is also unclear if workers in high OPA jobs benefit from LTPA the same way as those in sedentary jobs. Our objective was to determine whether LTPA and leisure time sedentary behaviour (LTSB) confer the same health effects across occupations with different levels of OPA. Methods Searches were run in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Public Health and Scopus from inception to June 9, 2020. Prospective or experimental studies which examined the effects of LTPA or LTSB on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal pain, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, arrhythmias and depression among adult workers grouped by OPA (low OPA/sitters, standers, moderate OPA/intermittent movers, high OPA/heavy labourers) were eligible. Results were synthesized using narrative syntheses and harvest plots, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Results The review includes 38 papers. Across all outcomes, except cardiovascular mortality, metabolic syndrome and atrial fibrillation, greater LTPA was consistently protective among low OPA, but conferred less protection among moderate and high OPA. For cardiovascular mortality and metabolic syndrome, higher levels of LTPA were generally associated with similar risk reductions among all OPA groups. Few studies examined effects in standers and none examined effects of LTSB across OPA groups. Conclusions Evidence suggests that LTPA is beneficial for all workers, but with larger risk reductions among those with low compared to high OPA jobs. This suggests that, in our attempts to improve the health of workers through LTPA, tailored interventions for different occupational groups may be required. More high-quality studies are needed to establish recommended levels of LTPA/LTSB for different OPA groups. Protocol registration PROSPERO #CRD42020191708.

No abstract

Anthrax toxin is a tripartite complex in which the protective antigen moiety forms a pore through which lethal factor and edema factor are translocated. Fabre et al. reveal a mechanism for efficient translocation in their structure of the heptameric protective antigen prepore bound to three lethal factors.

These results suggest that the exercise-focus of CR may not reduce sedentary behaviours. Future studies are needed to determine whether sedentary behaviour-specific reduction strategies are more effective than traditional exercise-based strategies and lead to meaningful improvements in clinical outcomes.

Background Growing evidence supports the integration and coordination of occupational health and safety and workplace health promotion activities instead of these coexisting as siloed efforts. Identifying implementation challenges and how these can be overcome is an important step to achieving truly integrated worker health efforts. We conducted a scoping review to identify the barriers and facilitators to integrated worker health approaches and described recommendations for implementing these efforts. Method Peer-reviewed articles and gray literature from 2008 to 2019 were searched from the following electronic databases: EMBASE, Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and ABI/INFORM. References from relevant articles and key informant suggestions also were collected. Data were extracted from documents if they focused on the occupational health and safety and health promotion of workers and described outcomes associated with integrated worker health approaches or outlined considerations relevant to the implementation of these approaches. Results Fifty-one documents met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Barriers and facilitators to implementing integrated worker health approaches were found at the extraorganizational, organizational, worker, and program levels, with limited resource availability the most reported barrier and support from leadership the most reported facilitator. Ten broad recommendations were identified and highlighted gaining leadership support, demonstrating leadership commitment, developing worker-centric approaches, and building capacity for workers. Conclusion In reviewing the literature, we found clear and consistent recommendations relevant for integrated worker health approaches. Further research is needed to better understand how these recommendations apply to diverse workforces and organizations with varied resources.