IntroductionVictims of intimate partner violence (IPV), or those individuals susceptible to IPV victimisation or perpetration, may benefit from participation in primary, secondary or tertiary interventions to address or mitigate exposure to violence despite mixed evidence of IPV intervention effectiveness. However, participation in such programmes is limited by poor access, sociocultural barriers and programme cost. As the world fast approaches universal access to the internet, web-based technologies and low-cost smartphones, new avenues to provide preventive health services including mobile health (mHealth) tools, platforms and services have emerged. The objective of this systematic review is to assess current web-based and mHealth interventions, which include web-based or mobile-based delivery methods for IPV prevention. Interpersonal violence is defined as perpetration or victimisation of a physical, psychological or sexual nature among adults. Interventions may be at the primary, secondary or tertiary level of the public health model.Methods and analysisThis systematic review will incorporate studies focused on any empirical prevention intervention intended for IPV victims or perpetrators of any gender where one or more components is web based or mobile based. Articles will be retrieved from the following academic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Open Grey, as well Google Scholar. Results will be limited to articles reporting primary data, published since 1998, and in English, Spanish, Portuguese or French. Data extraction procedures will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, a critical appraisal tool, will be used to record ratings of quality and risk of bias among studies selected for inclusion. Content analysis and between-study comparisons will be used to answer the objectives of this review.Ethics and disseminationResults from this review will be published in an open access format for the benefit of both academic and non-academic audiences, including community organisations and individuals seeking mHealth strategies to reduce and prevent IPV.Trial registration numberCRD42019123006.

The present paper presents an historical account of th.: Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory's industrial medical experience with exposure of personnel to Observations cover the period from the beginning of the Manhattan Project through 1960. In the early days, exposures were of an acute or semiacute nature. Improved industrial hygiene and engineering methods have changed the problem to one of chronic low-level exposure, largely via inhalation. Consideration of the Laboratory's experience during the past 17 years suggests that the present problem areas are: (1) the diagnosis of body burden under chronic exposure conditions and with little or no specific index of exposure other than a persistent low-level urinary excretion rate, and (2) the choice ofthe critical organ when exposure is largely via chronic low-level inhalation.

BackgroundMedical cannabis (MC) has been hypothesized as an alternative therapy for migraines, given the undesirable side effects of current migraine medications. The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of MC in the treatment of migraine in adults.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science for eligible studies in adults aged 18 years and older. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was conducted.ResultsA total of 12 publications involving 1,980 participants in Italy and the United States of America were included.Medical cannabis significantly reduced nausea and vomiting associated with migraine attacks after 6 months of use. Also, MC reduced the number of days of migraine after 30 days, and the frequency of migraine headaches per month. MC was 51% more effective in reducing migraines than non-cannabis products. Compared to amitriptyline, MC aborted migraine headaches in some (11.6%) users and reduced migraine frequency. While the use of MC for migraines was associated with the occurrence of medication overuse headaches (MOH), and the adverse events were mostly mild and occurred in 43.75% of patients who used oral cannabinoid preparations.ConclusionsThere is promising evidence that MC may have a beneficial effect on the onset and duration of migraine headaches in adults. However, well-designed experimental studies that assess MC's effectiveness and safety for treating migraine in adults are needed to support this hypothesis.

IntroductionAfrican American adults are disproportionately burdened by chronic diseases, particularly at younger ages. Developing culturally appropriate interventions is paramount to closing the gap in these health inequities. The purpose of this systematic review is to critically evaluate health promotion interventions for African Americans delivered in two environments that are frequented by this population: barbershops and hair salons. Characteristics of effective interventions will be identified and evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions will be provided. Results of this review will inform future health promotion efforts for African Americans particularly focused on the leading health inequities in obesity-related chronic diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes.Methods and analysisSubject headings and keywords will be used to search for synonyms of ‘barbershops,’ ‘hair salons’ and ‘African Americans’ to identify all relevant articles (from inception onwards) in the following databases: Academic Search Ultimate, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science (Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index) and ProQuest Dissertations. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies for adult (>18 years) African Americans delivered in barbershops and hair salons will be included. Eligible interventions will include risk reduction/management of obesity-related chronic disease: cardiovascular disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes. Two reviewers will independently screen, select and extract data and a third will mediate disagreements. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Quality and content of the evidence will be narratively synthesised.Ethics and disseminationSince this is a protocol for a systematic review, ethical approval is not required. Findings from the review will be widely disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and traditional and social media outlets.

No abstract