ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Weight gain is a barrier to smoking cessation. Previous interventions targeting weight gain while quitting smoking have largely been unsuccessful. The current study aimed to assess the efficacy of weight stability and weight loss interventions compared to a low-intensity, self-guided bibliotherapy weight management group. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up from 2018 to 2022 was conducted with participants (N = 305) who reported smoking at least five cigarettes per day for the last year and interest in quitting initially recruited from the Memphis, TN, USA area. Recruitment was expanded nationally with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, 276 completed 12-month follow-up. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS: The Bibliotherapy group was provided a weight management book. Both the Stability and Loss groups met via telephone for eight weeks to learn strategies for maintaining/losing weight, respectively. All three groups then received the same six-week smoking cessation intervention, with six months of varenicline provided. RESULTS: Individuals in the Loss group lost more weight (-2.01 kg, SE = 1.58) than individuals in the Bibliotherapy group (+1.08 kg, SE = 1.49, p = 0.0004), while the Stability group (-0.30 kg, SE = 1.56) was not significantly different from the Bibliotherapy group (p = 0.17). Those in the Stability group did not gain a significant amount of weight. Participants in the Loss group did not gain back all weight lost after smoking cessation and ended the study approximately 2.01 kg lower than baseline. The Bibliotherapy group did not gain the amount of weight expected after cessation. There were no significant differences between groups related to self-reported smoking cessation at each time point except at eight-month follow-up (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results indicated the Stability and the Loss interventions were effective for preventing post-smoking cessation weight gain, with the Loss group having the benefit of sustained weight loss. These interventions may be helpful to implement to combat weight gain and potentially facilitate smoking cessation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03156660).
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Study aims included assessing differences in beliefs/behaviors about COVID-19 prevention among current and former smokers with and without cancer. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey about COVID-19 beliefs/behaviors was administered from June 2020 to January 2021. SETTING: Survey conducted online via Qualtrics from June 2020 to January 2021. SUBJECTS: Participants were current (n = 101) and former (n = 102) smokers with and without cancer. MEASURES: Questions were related to beliefs about efficacy of and engagement in behaviors for COVID-19 prevention. RESULTS: Results from logistic regressions displayed that individuals with cancer were more likely to indicate using hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol was ineffective (OR = .12, 95% CI: [.02, .65]) and avoided public transportation (OR = 1.84, 95% CI: [1.04, 3.28]) compared to those without cancer. Former smokers were more likely to indicate taking vitamin C was effective (OR = .45, 95% CI: [.22, .93]) and rinsing your mouth with salt water (OR = 1.89, 95% CI: [1.02, 3.50]) was ineffective compared to current smokers. Current smokers were more likely to indicate not smoking was effective compared to former smokers (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: [1.13, 4.24]). CONCLUSIONS: Counters to COVID-19 misinformation may need to be tailored to different at-risk groups based on differential beliefs and behaviors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Women undergoing treatment for breast cancer require frequent clinic visits for maintenance of therapy. With COVID-19 causing health care disruptions, it is important to learn about how this population's access to health care has changed. This study compares self-reported health care utilization and changes in factors related to health care access among women treated at a cancer center in the mid-South US before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Participants (N = 306) part of a longitudinal study to improve adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) adherence completed pre-intervention baseline surveys about their health care utilization prior to AET initiation. Questions about the impact of COVID-19 were added after the pandemic started assessing financial loss and factors related to care. Participants were categorized into three time periods based on the survey completion date: (1) pre-COVID (December 2018 to March 2020), (2) early COVID (April 2020 - December 2020), and later COVID (January 2021 to June 2021). Negative binomial regression analyses used to compare health care utilization at different phases of the pandemic controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Adjusted analyses indicated office visits declined from pre-COVID, with an adjusted average of 17.7 visits, to 12.1 visits during the early COVID period (p = 0.01) and 9.9 visits during the later COVID period (p < 0.01). Hospitalizations declined from an adjusted average 0.45 admissions during early COVID to 0.21 during later COVID, after vaccines became available (p = 0.05). Among COVID period participants, the proportion reporting changes/gaps in health insurance coverage increased from 9.5% participants during early-COVID to 14.8% in the later-COVID period (p = 0.05). The proportion reporting financial loss due to the pandemic was similar during both COVID periods (34.3% early- and 37.7% later-COVID, p = 0.72). The proportion of participants reporting delaying care or refilling prescriptions decreased from 15.2% in early-COVID to 4.9% in the later-COVID period (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 caused disruptions to routine health care for women with breast cancer. Patients reported having fewer office visits at the start of the pandemic that continued to decrease even after vaccines were available. Fewer patients reported delaying in-person care as the pandemic progressed.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , COVID-19 , Humans , Female , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Longitudinal Studies , beta-Aminoethyl Isothiourea , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Health Services Accessibility , Ambulatory Care FacilitiesABSTRACT
Background: Effective recruitment of representative and diverse samples in research trials is important to the generalizability of findings and in describing access to behavioral interventions. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of local and national recruitment strategies for a smoking cessation and weight management-focused randomized controlled trial (Fit & Quit). The overall cost-effectiveness of recruitment strategies was also evaluated. Methods: The study initially recruited participants locally in the Memphis, TN area and later transitioned to national recruitment, necessitated by the transition to remote assessment strategies due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The study evaluated effective recruitment strategies for randomized participants (n = 305) across gender, race, rurality, and recruitment method, as well as the cost-effectiveness of methods used during the recruitment period of this study. Results: The most effective recruitment strategies were local postcards, local radio advertisements, word-of-mouth referrals, and national internet advertisements, which resulted in a combined 71.8% (n = 219) of the total randomized sample (n = 305). Radio advertisements were the best method for recruiting Black participants. Electronic recruitment strategies were the most effective method for non-urban participants. Additionally, gender, recruitment method, race, and rurality predicted randomization. Overall, electronic media methods were more cost-effective ($430.97 per participant) compared to traditional media methods ($931.43 per participant); however, traditional media methods resulted in a greater number of recruited and randomized participants. Conclusion: Results provide information on effective and cost-effective local and national recruitment methods for recruiting underrepresented groups of participants in behavioral clinical intervention studies.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus pandemic revealed long-standing, unaddressed fissures in our systems, including dramatic gender inequities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields. Women have disproportionately carried the burden of childcare and other caregiving responsibilities during the pandemic, and there are strong indications that the pandemic will likely exacerbate preexisting disparities in the pipeline of women in STEMM and in leadership positions. Based on a literature review, our own experiences, and the experiences of our colleagues, we review promising strategies that have been implemented by funding bodies, journals, professional societies, and colleges/universities as well as additional strategies that might be helpful for these entities to implement to move forward with policies in place that address gender inequities and rebuild our institutional systems better. At this moment in time, institutions should collect data on metrics such as recruitment, retention, tenure/promotion, funding, professional society membership, awards/honors, and scientific publishing. These data will be essential in determining the impact of policies on women in STEMM to ensure they are having the intended effect as well as what future actions might be necessary in an iterative process.
Subject(s)
Pandemics , Technology , Female , Humans , Leadership , Mathematics , UniversitiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a widespread impact on attendance in biomedical research and health care visits. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify when and how American adults might feel comfortable about resuming in-person research and health care visits. METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire data were collected from 135 adults (age: median 48 years; women: n=113, 83.7%; White participants: n=92, 68.2%) who were engaged in health-related research. RESULTS: More than half of the respondents (65/122, 53.3%) felt that the COVID-19 pandemic positively affected their desire to participate in research. Although 73.6% (95/129) of respondents also indicated a willingness to attend in-person health care visits while Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines are implemented, 85.8% (109/127) indicated a willingness to attend in-person, outdoor visits, and 92.2% (118/128) reported a willingness to attend drive-through visits (with CDC guidelines implemented during both visit types). Videoconferencing was the most preferred format for intervention visits; however, adults over the age of 65 years preferred this format less than younger adults (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and clinicians should continue to provide opportunities for continuing the conduction of remote-based interventions while enforcing CDC guidelines during in-person visits.
ABSTRACT
Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/psychology , Faculty, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Physical Distancing , Sex Factors , Work-Life Balance , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Career Mobility , Child , Child, Preschool , Efficiency , Female , Humans , Male , Mathematics , Medicine , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Technology , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on current research participants' mental health outcomes, ability to adhere to behavioral intervention recommendations, and desire to participate in research. METHODS: A quantitative/qualitative cross-sectional survey was used among adults currently enrolled in health-related research (N = 250; 85% women; > 50% currently enrolled in behavioral weight loss intervention). RESULTS: COVID-19 was perceived as a severe threat by most (62.3%). Related to COVID-19, 29.6% of participants reported moderate/severe symptoms of anxiety/depression, and 68.4% reported moderate/severe posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology, with women more likely to demonstrate moderate/severe anxiety/depression (P = 0.047) and PTSD symptomatology (P = 0.028) relative to men. Those with moderate/severe levels of anxiety/depression (P = 0.0154) and distress (P = 0.0330) were more likely to report a decreased desire to participate in research. Among those in behavioral interventions, individuals perceiving COVID-19 as a moderate/severe threat or experiencing moderate/severe depression or PTSD symptomatology were 4 to 19 times more likely to report that COVID-19 affected their ability to adhere to behavioral recommendations. Qualitative analysis identified four themes describing COVID-19's impact on research experiences: transition, remote intervention delivery, ability to adhere to program goals, and research participation interest. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that participants engaged in health-related research perceive COVID-19 as a significant threat, affecting mental health, desire to participate in research, and ability to adhere to intervention recommendations.