International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) identifier: CRD42016032973.

Eating behaviour is a complex construct that is liable to be modified by external factors. Due to the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many restrictive measures were carried out with the aim of reducing the impact of this disease. As a result, lifestyles were disrupted, which could affect eating behaviours. The aim of this systematic review of longitudinal studies was to assess changes in eating behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic by establishing a comparison of eating behaviours before and after the outbreak of the pandemic. This study followed the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020203246), whereas to assess the quality of the studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was applied. Out of a set of 826 studies, 23 were included in this systematic review. The main findings provided information about a shift towards modified eating behaviours, characterized by an increased snack frequency and a preference for sweets and ultra-processed food rather than fruits, vegetables, and fresh food. Additionally, an increased alcohol consumption was found among different countries. Consequently, adherence to healthy diets decreased. These findings are relevant to future policies and strategies to assess nutrition in cases of alarming situations such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

Women reported multilevel barriers for nonparticipation in and dropout from CR programs. Future clinical guidelines should evaluate and eliminate these barriers to improve adherence to CR programs in women. In addition, understanding the barriers for nonparticipation and dropout may be beneficial for future intervention trials.

No abstract

BackgroundPrimary care (PC) patients have difficulties in committing to and incorporating primary prevention and health promotion (PP&HP) activities into their long-term care. We aimed to re-interpret, for the first time, qualitative findings regarding factors affecting PC patients' acceptance of PP&HP activities.Methods and FindingsA meta-ethnographic synthesis was generated following electronic and manual searches that retrieved 29 articles. Papers were reviewed and translated to produce a re-interpretation of the extracted concepts. The factors affecting PC patients' receptiveness to PP&HP activities were framed in a four-level ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional and environment and society). Intrapersonal factors (patients' beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, skills, self-concept, motivation and resources) were the most numerous, with almost 25 different factors. Public health education to modify erroneous beliefs and values regarding PP&HP could encourage a transition to healthier lifestyles. Health care professionals' abilities to communicate and involve patients in the decision-making process can act as facilitators. Biopsychosocial training (with emphasis on communication skills) for health professionals must start with undergraduates. Increased consultation time, the use of reminders, follow-up visits and tools for communicating risk and motivating patients could be applied at the intrapersonal level. Collaborative care involving other health professionals (nutritionists or psychotherapists) and family and community stakeholders (teachers or gym trainers) was important in developing healthier habits. Patients also cited barriers related to the built environment and socioeconomic difficulties that highlighted the need for policies promoting social justice and equity. Encouraging PP&HP using social marketing strategies and regulating media to control its impact on health were also cited. Only the perspectives of PC patients in the context of chronic conditions were considered thus limiting extrapolation to other contexts.ConclusionsSeveral factors affect PP&HP. This must be taken into account when designing PP&HP activities if they are to be successfully implemented and maintained in routine practice.

Background Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) is a new pandemic, declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization, which could have negative consequences for pregnant and postpartum women. The scarce evidence published to date suggests that perinatal mental health has deteriorated since the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the few studies published so far have some limitations, such as a cross-sectional design and the omission of important factors for the understanding of perinatal mental health, including governmental restriction measures and healthcare practices implemented at the maternity hospitals. Within the Riseup-PPD COST Action, a study is underway to assess the impact of COVID-19 in perinatal mental health. The primary objectives are to (1) evaluate changes in perinatal mental health outcomes; and (2) determine the risk and protective factors for perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we will compare the results between the countries participating in the study. Methods This is an international prospective cohort study, with a baseline and three follow-up assessments over a six-month period. It is being carried out in 11 European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The sample consists of adult pregnant and postpartum women (with infants up to 6 months of age). The assessment includes measures on COVID-19 epidemiology and public health measures (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker dataset), Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences (COPE questionnaires), psychological distress (BSI-18), depression (EPDS), anxiety (GAD-7) and post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSD checklist for DSM-V). Discussion This study will provide important information for understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perinatal mental health and well-being, including the identification of potential risk and protective factors by implementing predictive models using machine learning techniques. The findings will help policymakers develop suitable guidelines and prevention strategies for perinatal mental health and contribute to designing tailored mental health interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04595123.

The PSRA included new variables and afforded an improved performance over the PERA for predicting the onset of major depression in Spain. However, the PERA is still the best option in other European countries.