Evaluation of field epidemiology training programs: a scoping review.

Objectives: Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETPs) are competency-based training programs that play a critical role in strengthening global health security and enhancing the epidemiological capabilities of public health professionals. This scoping review examined available published literature on the evaluations of FETPs globally. Methods: A literature review was conducted to evaluate FETPs globally. Keywords specific to the evaluation of FETPs were utilized to search the PubMed, Scopus, and Web Science databases. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 12 relevant studies from an initial pool of 60 were included in this study. Data extraction included key details, and a qualitative synthesis organized diverse findings using a narrative approach to draw appropriate conclusions and generate recommendations. Results: The review covered findings from 12 studies covering all three FETP modalities and spanning countries in various regions. Evaluations explored gained skills, engagement in FETP activities, and improvements in field epidemiological functions. Gained skills and knowledge, engagement in FETP activities, and improvements in field epidemiological functions were evident, with specific expectations for each FETP tier. Positive outcomes were consistent across studies, revealing improvements in surveillance activities, outbreak response, data management, and other system functions. Conclusion: This review confirmed the positive impact of FETPs on trainees and graduates, which emphasized competency enhancements across different modalities. Various strategies are recommended to improve the evaluation of FETPs. For effective evaluation, it is necessary to develop robust evaluation tools and establish standardized metrics to compare FETPs across regions or countries.

Daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) followed by high dose chemotherapy-Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation leads to superior outcomes when compared to DPd-alone for patients with Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While the role of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in the first line therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is well established, efficacy of ASCT for patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the era of novel therapeutic agents remains unknown. In this single center retrospective analysis, we evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety outcomes of patients with RRMM treated with daratumumab pomalidomide dexamethasone (DPd) alone versus (vs) DPd followed by ASCT. METHODS: A total of 83 patients with RRMM who were treated with and achieved at least partial response (PR) with DPd were evaluated by electronic medical records. All patients who responded to DPd and were deemed eligible for ASCT proceeded with high dose melphalan followed by autologous stem cell infusion (DPd + ASCT group). Remaining patients continued DPd until disease progression or intolerable toxicities (DPd-alone group). Responses were evaluated using the International Myeloma Working Group response criteria and toxicities were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patient and disease characteristics, as well as efficacy and safety outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 21/83 (25%) patients with RRMM who achieved at least PR to DPd underwent ASCT (DPd + ASCT group) while the remaining 62/83 (75%) continued DPd without ASCT (DPd-alone group). For the entire patient population, median age was 66 years (42-81), 49 (59%) patients were male, 54 (65%) patients had IgG isotype, 21 (25%) patients had R-ISS stage III disease, 51 (61%) patients had high-risk cytogenetics, and 17 (20%) patients had extramedullary disease. Patient age, disease stage, cytogenetic risk profile were well balanced between two groups. A stringent complete response was seen in 10 (16%) and 12 (57%) patients in the DPd-alone and DPd + AST groups, respectively. Median PFS was 17.5 months in the DPd-alone vs 42.2 months (p=0.006) in the DPd + ASCT group. Median OS was 38.1 months in the DPd-alone group vs not reached in the DPD + ASCT group (p=0.009). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicities, more commonly seen in the DPd + ASCT group. No treatment-related mortalities were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Patients with RRMM who responded to DPd and underwent HDT-ASCT demonstrated superior depth and duration of remission compared to those who received DPd-alone. Although DPd followed by ASCT is associated with more cytopenias and gastrointestinal toxicities, this treatment appears to be overall safe for patients with RRMM.

Beliefs Toward Smoking and COVID-19, and the Pandemic Impact on Smoking Behavior and Quit Intention: Findings from a Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Jordan.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between smoking and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is still topical with mixed epidemiological evidence. However, the pandemic may affect people's beliefs toward smoking as well as their smoking behavior and quit intentions. Considering high smoking rates in Jordan, our current study aimed to assess the following domains in a community-based sample from Jordan: (i) the beliefs that surround smoking/vaping and COVID-19 and (ii) the pandemic impact on smoking behavior and quit intention. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Jordan from March 9 to March 16, 2021, utilizing a web-based structured questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 13 items on sociodemographic, health, and smoking profiles, 14 items to assess beliefs surrounding COVID-19 and the use of combustible cigarettes (CCs), waterpipe (WP), and electronic cigarettes (ECs), and 12 items to assess the pandemic impact on smoking behavior and quit intention. RESULTS: Of 2424 survey respondents who participated in our study, there were 1163 never-smokers, 1044 current smokers, and 217 ex-smokers. The mean age of participants was 35.2 years (SD: 11.06). Most participants have reported anti-smoking beliefs with around 72.9% believed that WP smoking is related to the risk of contracting COVID-19. Also, 71.7% believed that smoking CC may worsen the COVID-19 clinical course, while 74.1% of respondents believed that smoking has no protective effect against COVID-19. During the pandemic, about 28.1% and 19.3% of current smokers reported increased or reduced smoking, respectively. Besides, 459 current smokers have expressed their plans/intention to quit smoking during the pandemic, of whom 27.5% (n = 126) confirmed that the driving force for their decision is a COVID-19-related reason, such as self-protection (n = 123) and protection of family members (n = 121) which were the most cited reasons. Also, around 63 participants have successfully ceased smoking during the pandemic. However, only 22 of them reported that the main driving motivation of their successful quit attempt was the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Most participants' beliefs and attitudes were against smoking during the pandemic. Nevertheless, the double-edged effect of the pandemic on smoking habits should be carefully considered, and reliable anti-smoking measures should be strengthened and sustained in the country.