No abstract

Objectives To investigate factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures due to COVID-19 in the UK. Study design Online cross-sectional survey. Methods Data were collected between 6th and 7th May 2020. A total of 2240 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or older were recruited from YouGov's online research panel. Results A total of 217 people (9.7%) reported that they or someone in their household had symptoms of COVID-19 (cough or high temperature/fever) in the last 7 days. Of these people, 75.1% had left the home in the last 24 h (defined as non-adherent). Men were more likely to be non-adherent, as were people who were less worried about COVID-19, and who perceived a smaller risk of catching COVID-19. Adherence was associated with having received help from someone outside your household. Results should be taken with caution as there was no evidence for associations when controlling for multiple analyses. Of people reporting no symptoms in the household, 24.5% had gone out shopping for non-essentials in the last week (defined as non-adherent). Factors associated with non-adherence and with a higher total number of outings in the last week included decreased perceived effectiveness of government ‘lockdown’ measures, decreased perceived severity of COVID-19 and decreased estimates of how many other people were following lockdown rules. Having received help was associated with better adherence. Conclusions Adherence to self-isolation is poor. As we move into a new phase of contact tracing and self-isolation, it is essential that adherence is improved. Communications should aim to increase knowledge about actions to take when symptomatic or if you have been in contact with a possible COVID-19 case. They should also emphasise the risk of catching and spreading COVID-19 when out and about and the effectiveness of preventative measures. Using volunteer networks effectively to support people in isolation may promote adherence.

As a response to concerns about the standard of qualitative research, attention has focused on the methods used. However, this may constrain the direction and content of qualitative studies and legitimise substandard research. Helen Lambert and Christopher McKevitt explain why anthropology may be able to contribute useful insights to health research Qualitative methods are now common in research into the social and cultural dimensions of ill health and health care. These methods derive from several social sciences, but the concepts and knowledge from some disciplinary traditions are underused. Here we describe the potential contribution of anthropology, which is based on the empirical comparison of particular societies. Anthropology has biological, social, and cultural branches, but when applied to health issues it most commonly relates to the social and cultural dimensions of health, ill health, and medicine.

The mortality burden, across the life course in India, falls disproportionately on economically disadvantaged and lower-caste groups. Residual state-level variation in mortality suggests an underlying ecology to the mortality divide in India.

Objectives To assess the cost effectiveness of strategies to screen for and treat familial hypercholesterolaemia. Design Cost effectiveness analysis. A care pathway for each patient was delineated and the associated probabilities, benefits, and costs were calculated. Participants Simulated population aged 16-54 years in England and Wales. Interventions Identification and treatment of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia by universal screening, opportunistic screening in primary care, screening of people admitted to hospital with premature myocardial infarction, or tracing family members of affected patients. Main outcome measure Cost effectiveness calculated as cost per life year gained (extension of life expectancy resulting from intervention) including estimated costs of screening and treatment. Results Tracing of family members was the most cost effective strategy (£3097 ( 5066, $4479) per life year gained) as 2.6 individuals need to be screened to identify one case at a cost of £133 per case detected. If the genetic mutation was known within the family then the cost per life year gained (£4914) was only slightly increased by genetic confirmation of the diagnosis. Universal population screening was least cost effective (£13 029 per life year gained) as 1365 individuals need to be screened at a cost of £9754 per case detected. For each strategy it was more cost effective to screen younger people and women. Targeted strategies were more expensive per person screened, but the cost per case detected was lower. Population screening of 16 year olds only was as cost effective as family tracing (£2777 with a clinical confirmation). Conclusions Screening family members of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective option for detecting cases across the whole population.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that vitamin D 3 is more efficacious at raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations than is vitamin D 2 , and thus vitamin D 3 could potentially become the preferred choice for supplementation. However, additional research is required to examine the metabolic pathways involved in oral and intramuscular administration of vitamin D and the effects across age, sex, and ethnicity, which this review was unable to verify.Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:1357-64.

No abstract

No abstract