Multiple Unhealthy Behaviors Share Equivalent Profiles of Readiness for Change in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Few studies have considered more than one behavior, despite the tendency towards multiple behaviors, and there are none that have focused on a Latino population. We determined the concurrence of four unhealthy behaviors related to glycemic control and identified common cognitive factors at advanced stages of readiness for change in patients with type 2 diabetes treated in primary care. A cross-sectional study was carried out during August-December 2018 in northeastern Mexico. We consecutively included patients between 20 and 70 years who were without medical contraindication, physical impediment against exercise, pregnancy and edentulism, among other selection criteria (n = 407). Stages of behavior were measured according to the Transtheoretical Model. Pros, cons, self-efficacy, susceptibility, and severity data were collected by interview. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression. A total of 36.7% exhibited more than one unhealthy behavior in precontemplation or contemplation (no interest or some interest in changing consumption of refined sugars and saturated fats, exercise, or oral hygiene behavior). Cons (p < 0.05) and self-efficacy (p < 0.001) were common to all four unhealthy behaviors, independent of potential confounders. Studies like ours facilitate the recognition of individuals with multiple unhealthy behaviors who share equivalent profiles of readiness for change before implementing public health programs.

Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type.

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States created a unique situation where multiple molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays rapidly received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and were validated by laboratories and utilized clinically, all within a period of a few weeks. We compared the performance of four of these assays that were evaluated for use at our institution: Abbott RealTime m2000 SARS-CoV-2 Assay, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, and Abbott ID NOW COVID-19. Nasopharyngeal and nasal specimens were collected from 88 ED and hospital-admitted patients and tested by the four methods in parallel to compare performance. ID NOW performance stood out as significantly worse than the other 3 assays despite demonstrating comparable analytic sensitivity. Further study determined that the use of a nasal swab compared to a nylon flocked nasopharyngeal swab, as well as use in a population chronically vs. acutely positive for SARS-CoV-2, were substantial factors.