Background Social distancing measures (e.g., avoiding travel, limiting physical contact with people outside of one's household, and maintaining a 1 or 2-metre distance between self and others when in public, depending on the country) are the primary strategies used to prevent transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Given that there is no effective treatment or vaccine for COVID-19, it is important to identify barriers and facilitators to adherence to social distancing to inform ongoing and future public health campaigns. Method This cross-sectional study was conducted online with a convenience sample of Englishspeaking adults. The survey was administered over the course of three weeks (March 30-April 16, 2020) when social distancing measures were well-enforced in North America and Europe. Participants were asked to complete measures assessing socio-demographic characteristics, psychological constructs, including motivations to engage in social distancing, prosocial attitudes, distress, and social distancing behaviors. Descriptive (mean, standard deviation, percentage) and inferential statistics (logistic regression) were used to describes endorsement rates for various motivations, rates of adherence to social distancing recommendations, and predictors of adherence. Results Data were collected from 2013 adults living primarily in North America and Europe. Most frequently endorsed motivations to engage in social distancing (or facilitators) included "I want to protect others" (86%), "I want to protect myself" (84%), and I feel a sense of responsibility to protect our community" (84%). Most frequently endorsed motivations against social distancing (or barriers) included "There are many people walking on the streets in my area" (31%), "I have friends or family who need me to run errands for them" (25%), "I don't trust

The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with several short- and long-term negative impacts on the well-being of older adults. Physical distancing recommendations to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV2-19 virus increase the risk of social isolation and loneliness, which are associated with negative outcomes including anxiety, depression, cognitive decline, and mortality. Taken together, social isolation and additional psychological impacts of the pandemic (e.g., worry, grief) underscore the importance of intervention efforts to older adults. This narrative review draws upon a wide range of evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of appropriate remotely-delivered interventions for older adults that target loneliness and psychological symptoms. These include interventions delivered by a range of individuals (i.e., community members to mental health professionals), and interventions that vary by implementation (e.g., self-guided therapy, remotely-delivered interventions via telephone or video call). Recommendations to overcome barriers to implementation and delivery are provided, with consideration given to the different living situations.

Background The role of patient involvement in health research has evolved over the past decade. Despite efforts to engage patients as partners, the role is not well understood. We undertook this review to understand the engagement practices of patients who assume roles as partners in health research. Methods Using a recognized methodological approach, two academic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) and grey literature sources were searched. Findings were organized into one of the three higher levels of engagement, described by the Patient and Researcher Engagement framework developed by Manafo. We examined and quantified the supportive strategies used during involvement, used thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke and themed the purpose of engagement, and categorized the reported outcomes according to the CIHR Engagement Framework. Results Out of 6621 records, 119 sources were included in the review. Thematic analysis of the purpose of engagement revealed five themes: documenting and advancing PPI, relevance of research, co‐building, capacity building and impact on research. Improved research design was the most common reported outcome and the most common role for patient partners was as members of the research team, and the most commonly used strategy to support involvement was by meetings. Conclusion The evidence collected during this review advanced our understanding of the engagement of patients as research partners. As patient involvement becomes more mainstream, this knowledge will aid researchers and policy‐makers in the development of approaches and tools to support engagement. Patient/User Involvement Patients led and conducted the grey literature search, including the synthesis and interpretation of the findings.

Background Physical distancing, wearing face masks and hand hygiene are evidence-based methods to protect the public from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. There has been a proliferation of research examining characteristics that can be targeted by public health interventions. This rapid review sought to identify predictors of attitudes toward and adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines, and identify interventions aiming to improve adherence. Methods Articles were retrieved from multiple databases (e.g. MEDLINE, CINAHL and medRxiv) on 6 August 2020. Studies were limited to samples collected from Western countries. Studies were classified according to the types of factor (s) examined as independent variables. The consistency of evidence for each factor was scored by two reviewers. Results In total, 1323 unique articles were identified in the initial search, resulting in 29 studies in the final synthesis. The available evidence suggests individuals who are older, identify as women, trust governments, perceive COVID-19 as threatening and access information through traditional news media are more likely to adhere with COVID-19 public health guidelines. Interventions for improving adherence have not yet been investigated thoroughly, and this review identified only three experimental studies. Conclusions This review has identified several characteristics that impact attitudes and adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines.

BackgroundPublished validation studies have reported different factor structures for the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). The objective of this study was to assess the factor structure of the SCS in a large general population sample representative of the German population.MethodsA German population sample completed the SCS and other self-report measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus was used to test six models previously found in factor analytic studies (unifactorial model, two-factor model, three-factor model, six-factor model, a hierarchical (second order) model with six first-order factors and two second-order factors, and a model with arbitrarily assigned items to six factors). In addition, three bifactor models were also tested: bifactor model #1 with two group factors (SCS positive items, called SCS positive) and SCS negative items, called SCS negative) and one general factor (overall SCS); bifactor model #2, which is a two-tier model with six group factors, three (SCS positive subscales) corresponding to one general dimension (SCS positive) and three (SCS negative subscales) corresponding to the second general dimension (SCS negative); bifactor model #3 with six group factors (six SCS subscales) and one general factor (overall SCS).ResultsThe two-factor model, the six-factor model, and the hierarchical model showed less than ideal, but acceptable fit. The model fit indices for these models were comparable, with no apparent advantage of the six-factor model over the two-factor model. The one-factor model, the three-factor model, and bifactor model #3 showed poor fit. The other two bifactor models showed strong support for two factors: SCS positive and SCS negative.ConclusionThe main results of this study are that, among the German general population, six SCS factors and two SCS factors fit the data reasonably well. While six factors can be modelled, the three negative factors and the three positive factors, respectively, did not reflect reliable or meaningful variance beyond the two summative positive and negative item factors. As such, we recommend the use of two subscale scores to capture a positive factor and a negative factor when administering the German SCS to general population samples and we strongly advise against the use of a total score across all SCS items.

No abstract

Cytogenetic examination was made of 103 13-14-day-old blastocysts and 116 24-32-day-old fetuses from untreated and androstenedione-7-HSA-immunized Merino ewes. There were no differences in the chromosome composition of blastocysts or fetuses from treated or untreated ewes and so the data were combined. At Days 13-14 a 1N/2N mosaic and a 2N - 1/2N/4N mosaic embryo were observed. In addition, 52 of the blastocysts were 2N/4N mosaics, with 8 of these also containing 8N cells, and one blastocyst was a 2N/8N mosaic. No aneuploid fetuses were observed, but 80 of the 116 fetuses contained polyploid cells, including 4N, 6N and 8N cells. The polyploid cells observed in the blastocysts and fetuses should not be considered as abnormal cells as they appear to be a normal part of the developmental processes leading to trophoblast formation and fetal differentiation.

Chromosome counts were obtained from 73 out of 177 (41%) early cleavagestage Merino embryos. A further 13 embryos were classified as probably diploid. Chromosome aberrations were found in 8 (11%) embryos, one of which was aneuploid and the remainder (9\m=.\6%) had euploid abnormalities. If the probable diploid embryos are included, the incidence of euploid aberrations falls to 8\m=.\1% Of the abnormal embryos there was one aneuploid with 2N = 55, two haploids, four haploid/diploid mosaics and one zygote with 4 haploid metaphase plates. Two additional zygotes had 4 interphase pronuclei. Four of the euploid abnormalities were attributable to the entry of two or more spermatozoa and therefore polyspermy is the largest single factor leading to chromosomally aberrant embryos in this population of Merino ewes.