No abstract

BackgroundPhysical inactivity is a growing concern for society and is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, obesity, and other chronic diseases.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the efficacy of the Accupedo-Pro Pedometer mobile phone app intervention, with the goal of increasing daily step counts in young adults.MethodsMobile phone users (n=58) between 17-26 years of age were randomized to one of two conditions (experimental and control). Both groups downloaded an app that recorded their daily step counts. Baseline data were recorded and followed-up at 5 weeks. Both groups were given a daily walking goal of 30 minutes, but the experimental group participants were told the equivalent goal in steps taken, via feedback from the app. The primary outcome was daily step count between baseline and follow-up.ResultsA significant time x group interaction effect was observed for daily step counts (P=.04). Both the experimental (P<.001) and control group (P=.03) demonstrated a significant increase in daily step counts, with the experimental group walking an additional 2000 steps per day.ConclusionsThe results of this study demonstrate that a mobile phone app can significantly increase physical activity in a young adult sample by setting specific goals, using self-monitoring, and feedback.

No abstract

Background Contact tracing remains a critical part of controlling COVID-19 spread. Many countries have developed novel software applications (Apps) in an effort to augment traditional contact tracing methods. Aim Conduct a national survey of the Irish population to examine barriers and levers to the use of a contact tracing App. Methods Adult participants were invited to respond via an online survey weblink sent via e-mail and messaging Apps and posted on our university website and on popular social media platforms, prior to launch of the national App solution. Results A total of 8088 responses were received, with all 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland represented. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would definitely download a contact-tracing App, while 30% said they would probably download a contact tracing App. Ninety-five percent of respondents identified at least one reason for them to download such an App, with the most common reasons being the potential for the App to help family members and friends and a sense of responsibility to the wider community. Fifty-nine percent identified at least one reason not to download the App, with the most common reasons being fear that technology companies or the government might use the App technology for greater surveillance after the pandemic. Conclusion The Irish citizens surveyed expressed high levels of willingness to download a public health-backed App to augment contact tracing. Concerns raised regarding privacy and data security will be critical if the App is to achieve the large-scale adoption and ongoing use required for its effective operation.

The QOL scores are not consistently lower than population normative values compared with different normative studies. The strongest correlation was between the presence of persistent headache and QOL. Other correlations were not consistent in all categories, and few were statistically significant. These trends in some categories do not explain the difference seen between patients after acoustic neuroma surgery in this study and normal populations in other studies.

General practitioners working in an accident and emergency department manage non-emergency patients safely and use fewer resources than do usual accident and emergency staff.1 2 In our previous study we speculated that this intervention might have the potential to break the cycle of "inappropriate attendance" at accident and emergency, use of hospital resources, and perceived confirmation of need for a visit.2 We now report the results of a review of the reattendance rates of our original study group. Subjects, methods, and resultsThe setting and methodology of our original study have been described. 2 In short, patients who had attended St James's Hospital accident and emergency department between 1 August 1993 and 1 October 1994 were triaged using a validated system into four categories-"life threatening" (1), "urgent" (2), "semiurgent" (3), and "delay acceptable" (4). Local general practitioners were employed on a sessional basis to manage patients only from categories 3 and 4. Randomisation of patients to general practitioners or usual accident and emergency staff depended on time of registration.We identified the patients included in our original study and, using their unique identifying numbers, determined the number of times that they had reattended the accident and emergency department within two years of their index visit. The date of each reattendance was not recorded. With this information, we classified patients as reattenders or non-reattenders. Only subsequent visits categorised as 3 or 4 in the triage system were included in this analysis. We excluded visits that patients had been asked to make for the purpose of review, dressings, etc. We assessed the effects of six variables (see table) on reattendance and, using SPSS, performed a direct logistic regression analysis to test the power of these variables to predict reattendance. Socioeconomic status was determined by eligibility for General Medical Services (access to free primary care and drugs). Roughly a third of the Irish population are eligible for General Medical Services and represent the poorest section of the community.Of the 4684 patients in our original study, 225 could not be identified for inclusion in this study. Of the remaining 4459 patients, 1890 (42%) reattended at least once to the accident and emergency department within two years of their index visit for management of an unrelated complaint (median number of visits 3 (range 1-293, interquartile range 2-5)). The table shows the effects of the study variables on reattendance. Eligibility for General Medical Services, registration with a general practitioner, male sex, and having an index visit categorised as 3 increased the likelihood of reattendance. The median age of those who reattended was 49, not significantly different from the median age of 45 of those who did not reattend (Kruskal-Wallis test). A test of the full model, with all six predictors, against a model with a constant value only was statistically reliable ( 2 = 164.45 (df = 6, n = 4356), P < 0.01). The model was...

No abstract

BackgroundFatigue is a common symptom in cancer patients that can persist beyond the curative treatment phase. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of psychological interventions for cancer-related fatigue in post-treatment cancer survivors.MethodsWe searched relevant online databases and sources of grey literature. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating psychological interventions in adult cancer patients after the completion of treatment, with fatigue as an outcome measure, were included. Two review authors extracted data independently from the selected studies and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool.ResultsThirty-three psychological interventions were identified. The sample size of the included studies varied between 28 and 409, with 4525 participants overall. Twenty-three of the included studies reported a significant effect of the interventions on reducing fatigue in cancer survivors. Most interventions focused on psychoeducation, mindfulness, cognitive or behaviour therapy-oriented strategies. However, studies differed widely in terms of measurement tools used to assess fatigue, mode, duration and frequency of the intervention delivery.ConclusionsThis review showed some tentative support for psychological interventions for fatigue after cancer treatment. However, as the RCTs were heterogeneous in nature and the number of high-quality studies was limited, definitive conclusions are not yet possible. With the growing need for stage-specific research in cancer, this review sought to inform current practice and to summarise the existing evidence base of randomised controlled trials in the area.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42014015219.