ABSTRACT
Research has shown micronutrient capsules can reduce stress in clinical and nonclinical recipients. However, as individuals can struggle with taking capsules, the objective of this double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of treating stress and well-being using an alternative delivery methodology: a powder that is absorbed via the oral mucosa. Seventy-two mild-severely stressed students, assessed using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), were randomized to placebo or micronutrients and took one powder pouch per day for 4 weeks. Seven (10%) dropped out with no group differences. Symptoms of stress, depression, anxiety, irritability, anger, sleep, diet, and side effects were measured with online questionnaires every 2 weeks. There were no group differences on the primary outcome measures of stress (DASS-21;d = 0.15, p = .525) and self-reported improvement (Modified Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale), with 17.1% of the micronutrient and 16.2% of the placebo group identifying themselves as "much" to "very much" improved. However, the micronutrient group experienced statistically significantly greater reduction in irritability (d = 0.54, p = .024) and anger (d = 0.62, p = .011) relative to placebo, measured with the Affective Reactivity Scale and the Abbreviated Profile of Mood States, respectively. No group differences were found on remaining measures, with both groups showing significant improvements. There were significantly more headaches and drowsiness reported in the micronutrient group. Belief in treatment assignment was significantly correlated to self-reported improvement (r = -0.247, p = .049). To conclude, the micronutrients were no better than placebo in reducing stress;nonetheless, the significant benefit on irritability requires further research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
Climate change and population growth will increase vulnerability to natural and human-made disasters or pandemics. Longitudinal research studies may be adversely impacted by a lack of access to study resources, inability to travel around the urban environment, reluctance of sample members to attend appointments, sample members moving residence and potentially also the destruction of research facilities. One of the key advantages of longitudinal research is the ability to assess associations between exposures and outcomes by limiting the influence of sample selection bias. However, ensuring the validity and reliability of findings in longitudinal research requires the recruitment and retention of respondents who are willing and able to be repeatedly assessed over an extended period of time. This study examined recruitment and retention strategies of 11 longitudinal cohort studies operating during the Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake sequence which began in September 2010, including staff perceptions of the major impediments to study operations during/after the earthquakes and respondents' barriers to participation. Successful strategies to assist recruitment and retention after a natural disaster are discussed. With the current COVID-19 pandemic, longitudinal studies are potentially encountering some of the issues highlighted in this paper including: closure of facilities, restricted movement of research staff and sample members, and reluctance of sample members to attend appointments. It is possible that suggestions in this paper may be implemented so that longitudinal studies can protect the operation of their research programmes.