Pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies: Provisions related to scientific research.

Pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies are common and grant companies the exclusive right to serve, sell, and market specific beverages on campuses. In exchange, universities receive financial payments and other incentives. At the same time, beverage industry-sponsored research at universities has increased. Pouring rights contracts may include provisions that allocate funds for or place limitations on scientific research. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed whether pouring rights contracts contained provisions that allocated funds for or placed limitations on scientific research. From 2019 to 2020, we obtained contracts through requests under public records laws from US universities (public, 4-year, ≥ 20,000 students) with contracts active 2018-2019. Of the 143 requests, 6 did not have contracts and 9 declined to provide contracts. Our final sample included 131 contracts from 124 universities in 38 states. Thirty contracts (22.9%) referenced research (18 Coke; 12 Pepsi). Three contracts (2.3%) included provisions that made direct grants or gifts of research funding, 3 (2.3%) permitted the university to acknowledge funding from competitors, and 26 (19.8%) allowed for research using beverages from competing companies. Given increases in industry-sponsored research, the absence of provisions that made direct grants or gifts of research funding suggests that sponsorship of research is occurring through other mechanisms. Additionally, universities must be able to acknowledge funding and conduct research on any beverage and should not need permission via contract provisions to do so. Future studies should consider practical implications of these provisions in pouring rights contracts and assess whether they facilitate or hinder research.

Incentives and penalties tied to sales volume in contracts between beverage companies and public universities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether and how beverage companies incentivize universities to maximize sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) sales through pouring rights contracts. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of contracts between beverage companies and public U.S. universities with 20,000 or more students active in 2018 or 2019. We requested contracts from 143 universities. The primary measures were presence of financial incentives and penalties tied to sales volume. RESULTS: 124 universities (87%) provided 131 unique contracts (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi). 125 contracts (95%) included at least one provision tying payments to sales volume. The most common incentive type was commissions, found in 104 contracts (79%). Nineteen contracts (15%) provided higher commissions or rebates for carbonated soft drinks compared to bottled water. CONCLUSIONS: Most contracts between universities and beverage companies incentivized universities to market and sell bottled beverages, particularly SSBs. Given the health risks associated with consumption of SSBs, universities should consider their role in promoting them.

Collagen glycation alters neovascularization in vitro and in vivo.

Microvascular network formation is required for the success of many therapies in regenerative medicine. The process of vessel assembly is fundamentally altered, however, in many people within the potential patient population, including the elderly and people with diabetes. Significant research has been performed to determine how cellular dysfunction contributes to this inadequate neovascularization, but alterations in the extracellular matrix (ECM) may also influence this process. Glycation of ECM proteins, specifically type I collagen, increases as people age and is accelerated due to uncontrolled diabetes. This glycation results in increased ECM stiffness and resistance to degradation. The goal of this research is to determine whether collagen glycation consistent with changes in aged (defined as people older than 80 years old) and diabetic individuals influences neovascularization. Collagen gels that were incubated in glucose-6-phopshate (G6P) for varying times exhibited cross-linking (26.2+/-8.1% and 31.3+/-5.6% for incubation in 375 mM G6P for 5 and 8 days, respectively), autofluorescence, and advanced glycation end product levels (666+/-481 and 2122+/-501 pmol/mg protein for 5 and 8 days of 375 mM G6P, respectively) consistent with aged and diabetic populations. Three-dimensional culture models showed that sprouting angiogenesis was delayed in collagen gels with high levels of glycation. When implanted in vivo, glycated gels were degraded (44.4+/-4.2% and 49.5+/-11.7% nondegraded gel remaining for gels incubated for 5 and 8 days in 375 mM G6P, respectively) and vascularized (75.5+/-32.0 and 73.7+/-23.6 vessels/mm(2)) more slowly than controls (22.3+/-9.9% gel remaining and 133.3+/-31.0 vessels/mm(2)). These results suggest that glycation of collagen can alter neovascularization and may contribute to alterations in vessel assembly observed as people age and due to diabetes.

How frail elders evaluate their caregiver's role enactment: a scale to measure affection, skill, and attentiveness.

In this validity study, using factor analysis, the authors identified three dimensions (affection, skill, and attentiveness) of the Care Receiver View of Caregiver Role Enactment Scale, a self-report measure designed to elicit an elderly care receiver's evaluation of how well their family member carried out the role of caregiver. The scale is a revision of the Satisfaction With Caregiving Scale. This study was a secondary analysis of data from PREP: Family-based Care for Frail Older Persons. Care receiver mutuality was the variable most highly correlated with caregiver role enactment. Other variables related to good quality care were higher care receiver positive affect, better caregiver physical health, and lower caregiver role strain; husband caregivers were rated as giving poorer quality care.