Background The COVID-19 pandemic has potentially had a negative impact on the mental health and well-being of individuals and families. Anxiety levels and risk factors within particular populations are poorly described. Objective This study aims to evaluate confidence, understanding, trust, concerns, and levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population and assess risk factors for increased anxiety. Methods We launched a cross-sectional online survey of a large Russian population between April 6 and 15, 2020, using multiple social media platforms. A set of questions targeted confidence, understanding, trust, and concerns in respondents. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was used to measure anxiety. Multiple linear regressions were used to model predictors of COVID-19–related anxiety. Results The survey was completed by 23,756 out of 53,966 (44.0% response rate) unique visitors; of which, 21,364 were residing in 62 areas of Russia. State Anxiety Scale (S-Anxiety) scores were higher than Trait Anxiety Scale scores across all regions of Russia (median S-Anxiety score 52, IQR 44-60), exceeding published norms. Time spent following news on COVID-19 was strongly associated with an increased S-Anxiety adjusted for baseline anxiety level. One to two hours spent reading COVID-19 news was associated with a 5.46 (95% CI 5.03-5.90) point difference, 2-3 hours with a 7.06 (95% CI 6.37-7.74) point difference, and more than three hours with an 8.65 (95% CI 7.82-9.47) point difference, all compared to less than 30 minutes per day. Job loss during the pandemic was another important factor associated with higher S-Anxiety scores (3.95, 95% CI 3.31-4.58). Despite survey respondents reporting high confidence in information regarding COVID-19 as well as an understanding of health care guidance, they reported low overall trust in state and local authorities, and perception of country readiness. Conclusions Among Russian respondents from multiple social media platforms, there was evidence of higher levels of state anxiety associated with recent job loss and increased news consumption, as well as lower than expected trust in government agencies. These findings can help inform the development of key public health messages to help reduce anxiety and raise perceived trust in governmental response to this current national emergency. Using a similar methodology, comparative surveys are ongoing in other national populations.

Background The humanities have long been shown to play an important role in the medical school curriculum. However, few studies have looked into the opinions of medical students on the usefulness and necessity of the humanities as well as their extracurricular involvement with them. The aim of this study was to: a) understand medical students’ attitude towards the humanities in medical education and b) assess their understanding of the necessary qualities of doctors and how interaction with the humanities affects the development of such attributes. Methods A mixed methods survey was designed to elicit demographics, engagement, interest and perspective on curricular positioning, and to explore how students ranked the qualities of a doctor. It was distributed to medical students of all year groups in the 6-year bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery (MBBS) course at Imperial College London. Results One hundred nine fully completed questionnaires were received. No significant difference was found in engagement or interest in the humanities between genders. Students felt strongly that humanities subjects shouldn’t be assessed (71:18) though some felt it was necessary for engagement, while no consensus was reached on whether these subjects should be elective or not (38:31). The majority of students wanted more medical humanities to be incorporated into the traditional medical course with a preference of incorporation into the first 3 years. Junior medical students were more likely to rank empathy as a highly desirable attribute than senior students. Students provided qualitative insights into curricular positioning, assessment and value. Conclusions This study provides the perspective of medical students on how and whether the humanities should be positioned in medical education. It may be helpful to medical schools that are committed to student involvement in curriculum design.

Human breast milk (HM) contains multiple bioactive substances determining its impact on children's health. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are a heterogeneous group of secreted nanoparticles that are present in HM and may be partially responsible for its beneficial effects. The precise roles and content of EVs in HM remain largely unknown. To examine this, we performed a short narrative review on the literature focusing on HM EVs to contextualize the available data, followed by a scoping review of MEDLINE and Embase databases. We identified 424 nonduplicate citations with 19 original studies included. In this perspective, we summarize the evidence around HM EVs, highlight some theoretical considerations based on existing evidence, and provide an overview of some challenges associated with the complexity and heterogeneity of EV research. We consider how the existing data from HM studies conform to the minimal information for studies of EVs (MISEV) guidelines. Across the studies a variety of research methods were utilized involving both bench-based and translational methods, and a range of different EV contents were examined including RNA, proteins, and glycopeptides. We observed a variety of health outcomes in these studies, including allergy and atopy, necrotizing enterocolitis, and HIV. While some promising results have been demonstrated, the heterogeneity in outcomes of interest, methodological limitations, and relatively small number of studies in the field make comparison between studies or further translational work problematic. To date, no studies have examined normative values of HM EVs in a large, diverse population or with respect to potentially important influencing factors such as timing (hind- vs. foremilk), stage (colostrum vs. mature milk), and infant age (preterm vs. term), which makes extrapolation from bench or “basic” research impossible. Future research should focus on addressing the current inadequacies in the literature and utilize MISEV guidelines to inform study design.

ObjectivesTo review available health and nutrition claims for infant formula products in multiple countries and to evaluate the validity of the evidence used for substantiation of claims.DesignInternational cross sectional survey.SettingPublic facing and healthcare professional facing company owned or company managed formula industry websites providing information about products marketed for healthy infants delivered at full term in 15 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2020-22.Main outcome measuresNumber and type of claims made for each product and ingredient. References cited were reviewed and risk of bias was assessed for registered clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and for systematic reviews using the Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews tool.Results757 infant formula products were identified, each with a median of two claims (range from 1 (Australia) to 4 (US)), and 31 types of claims across all products. Of 608 products with ≥1 claims, the most common claim types were “helps/supports development of brain and/or eyes and/or nervous system” (323 (53%) products, 13 ingredients), “strengthens/supports a healthy immune system” (239 (39%) products, 12 ingredients), and “helps/supports growth and development” (224 (37%) products, 20 ingredients). 41 groups of ingredients were associated with ≥1claims, but many claims were made without reference to a specific ingredient (307 (50%) products). The most common groups of ingredients cited in claims were long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (278 (46%) products, 9 different claims); prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics (225 (37%) products, 19 claims); and hydrolysed protein (120 (20%) products, 9 claims). 161/608 (26%) products with ≥1 claims provided a scientific reference to support the claim—266 unique references were cited for 24 different claim types for 161 products. The reference types most frequently cited were clinical trials (50%, 134/266) and reviews (20%, 52/266). 28% (38/134) of referenced clinical trials were registered, 14% (19/134) prospectively. 58 claims referred to 32 registered clinical trials, of which 51 claims (27 trials) related to a randomised comparison. 46 of 51 claims (90%) referenced registered clinical trial outcomes at high risk of bias, and all cited systematic reviews and pooled analyses, carried a high risk of bias.ConclusionsMost infant formula products had at least one health and nutrition claim. Multiple ingredients were claimed to achieve similar health or nutrition effects, multiple claims were made for the same ingredient type, most products did not provide scientific references to support claims, and referenced claims were not supported by robust clinical trial evidence.

Circulating microRNAs (or miRNAs) in bodily fluids, are increasingly being highlighted as promising diagnostic and predictive biomarkers for a broad range of pathologies. Although nucleic acid sensors have been developed...