ObjectiveTo explore the level and influencing factors of frontline nurses’ post-traumatic growth (PTG) during COVID-19 epidemic.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in February 2020 in three hospitals in China. The Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) was used to investigate the PTG of frontline nurses. Data on related factors, including demographic characteristics and subjective variables, were collected. The Event-Related Rumination Inventory was used to assess rumination. Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation was calculated for bivariate analysis. Independent sample t-tests or one-way analysis of variance and multiple linear regression analysis were used to examine the related factors.ResultsA total of 179 frontline nurses were recruited, and 167 were included in the analyses. The mean PTG score was 70.53±17.26. The bivariate analyses showed that deliberate rumination was modestly positively correlated with PTG (r=0.557, p<0.01), while intrusive rumination had a modest negative correlation with PTG (r=−0.413, p<0.01). Multiple linear regression demonstrated that working years, self-confidence in frontline work, awareness of risk, psychological intervention or training during the epidemic and deliberate rumination were the main influencing factors of PTG among frontline nurses and accounted for 42.5% of the variance (F=31.626, p<0.001).ConclusionsThe PTG of frontline nurses was at a medium to high level and was influenced by working years, self-confidence in frontline work, awareness of risk, psychological intervention or training and deliberate rumination. It is necessary to strengthen psychological guidance and training for frontline nurses and promote their deliberate rumination on epidemic events to improve their PTG.
BackgroundAlthough studies have examined the association between dietary magnesium intake and health outcome, the results are inconclusive. Here, we conducted a dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies in order to investigate the correlation between magnesium intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and all-cause mortality.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for articles that contained risk estimates for the outcomes of interest and were published through May 31, 2016. The pooled results were analyzed using a random-effects model.ResultsForty prospective cohort studies totaling more than 1 million participants were included in the analysis. During the follow-up periods (ranging from 4 to 30 years), 7678 cases of CVD, 6845 cases of coronary heart disease (CHD), 701 cases of heart failure, 14,755 cases of stroke, 26,299 cases of T2D, and 10,983 deaths were reported. No significant association was observed between increasing dietary magnesium intake (per 100 mg/day increment) and the risk of total CVD (RR: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88–1.10) or CHD (RR: 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85–1.01). However, the same incremental increase in magnesium intake was associated with a 22% reduction in the risk of heart failure (RR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69–0.89) and a 7% reduction in the risk of stroke (RR: 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89–0.97). Moreover, the summary relative risks of T2D and mortality per 100 mg/day increment in magnesium intake were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77–0.86) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81–0.99), respectively.ConclusionsIncreasing dietary magnesium intake is associated with a reduced risk of stroke, heart failure, diabetes, and all-cause mortality, but not CHD or total CVD. These findings support the notion that increasing dietary magnesium might provide health benefits.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0742-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundThere is sufficient evidence supporting a relationship between increased body mass index (BMI) and an increased risk for breast cancer among postmenopausal women. However, most studies have found a decreased risk for premenopausal breast cancer. This study was conducted to find out the different effects of BMI on the risk of breast cancer among premenopausal and postmenopausal women, and explore the potential factors that influence the associations.MethodsA dose-response meta-analysis with 3,318,796 participants from 31 articles was conducted. Cohort studies that included BMI and corresponding breast cancer risk were selected through various databases including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Chinese Scientific Journals (VIP). Random effects models were used for analyzing the data.ResultsThe summary relative risks (RRs) were 1.33 (95%CI: 1.20–1.48) and 0.94(95%CI: 0.80–1.11) among postmenopausal and premenopausal women, respectively. The dose-response meta-analysis indicated a positive non-linear association between BMI and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women, and compared to the mean level of the normal BMI category (21.5 kg/m2) the RR in total postmenopausal women were1.03 (95% CI: 1.02–1.05) per 1 kg/m2 increment. However, no statistically significant association among total premenopausal women was detected. In subgroup analysis among European premenopausal women, the summary RR was 0.79(95%CI: 0.70–0.88). The non-linear relationship showed a negative non-linear association between BMI and breast cancer risk among European premenopausal women. When compared to the mean level of the normal BMI category, the RRs were 0.98 (95%CI: 0.96–1.00) per 1 kg/m2 increment, respectively.ConclusionsIn line with previous studies BMI had different effects on pre-menopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. However, contrary to previous studies, a high BMI was not associated with decreased risk in total pre-menopausal women. More research is needed to better understand these differences.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4953-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Health literacy is the ability of individuals to access, process, and understand health information to make decisions regarding treatment and their health on the whole; it is critical to maintain and improve public health. However, the health literacy of urban and rural populations in China has been little known. Thus, this study aims to assess the status of health literacy and explore the differences of its possible determinants (e.g., socio-economic factors) among urban and rural populations in Henan, China. A cross-sectional study, 78,646 participants were recruited from a populous province in central China with a multi-stage random sampling design. The Chinese Resident Health Literacy Scale was adopted to measure the health literacy of the respondents. In the participants, the level of health literacy (10.21%) in central China was significantly lower than the national average, and a big gap was identified between urban and rural populations (16.92% vs. 8.09%). A noticeable difference was reported in different aspects and health issues of health literacy between urban and rural populations. The health literacy level was lower in those with lower levels of education, and a significant difference was identified in the level of health literacy among people of different ages and occupations in both urban and rural areas. Note that in rural areas, as long as residents educated, they all had higher odds to exhibit basic health literacy than those uneducated; in rural areas, compared with those aged 15 to 24 years, residents aged 45 to 54 years (OR = 0.846,95% CI (0.730, 0.981)), 55 to 64 years (OR = 0.716,95% CI (0.614, 0.836)) and above 65 years (OR = 0.679, 95% CI (0.567, 0.812)) were 84.6%, 71.6%, and 67.9%, respectively, less likely to exhibit basic health literacy. Considering the lower health literacy among rural residents compared with their urban counterparts, a reorientation of the health policy-making for Chinese rural areas is recommended. This study suggests that urban–rural disparity about health literacy risk factors should be considered when implementing health literacy promotion intervention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.