Impact of armed conflict on cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Prolonged armed conflict may constrain efforts to address non-communicable disease in some settings. We assessed the impact of armed conflict on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among civilians in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: In February 2019, we performed a systematic review searching Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Global Health and Web of Science without language or date restrictions. We included adult, civilian populations in LMICs. Outcomes included CVDs and diabetes, and eight clinical and behavioural factors (blood pressure, blood glucose, lipids, tobacco, alcohol, body mass index, nutrition, physical activity). We systematically reanalysed data from original papers and presented them descriptively. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies analysed 23 conflicts, and 66% were of low quality. We found some evidence that armed conflict is associated with an increased coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular and endocrine diseases, in addition to increased blood pressure, lipids, alcohol and tobacco use. These associations were more consistent for mortality from chronic ischaemic heart disease or unspecified heart disease, systolic blood pressure and tobacco use. Associations between armed conflict and other outcomes showed no change, or had mixed or uncertain evidence. We found no clear patterning by conflict type, length of follow-up and study quality, nor strong evidence for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Armed conflict may exacerbate CVDs and their risk factors, but the current literature is somewhat inconsistent. Postconflict reconstruction efforts should deliver low-resource preventative interventions through primary care to prevent excess CVD-related morbidity and mortality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017065722.

Evaluation of Two Mobile Health Apps in the Context of Smoking Cessation: Qualitative Study of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Versus Non-CBT-Based Digital Solutions.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps can offer users numerous benefits, representing a feasible and acceptable means of administering health interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT is commonly used in the treatment of mental health conditions, where it has a strong evidence base, suggesting that it represents an effective method to elicit health behavior change. More importantly, CBT has proved to be effective in smoking cessation, in the context of smoking-related costs to the National Health Service (NHS) having been estimated to be as high as £2.6bn in 2015. Although the evidence base for computerized CBT in mental health is strong, there is limited literature on its use in smoking cessation. This, combined with the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions, advocates a need for research into the effectiveness of CBT-based smoking cessation apps. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was, first, to explore participants' perceptions of 2 mHealth apps, a CBT-based app, Quit Genius, and a non-CBT-based app, NHS Smokefree, over a variety of themes. Second, the study aimed to investigate the perceptions and health behavior of users of each app with respect to smoking cessation. METHODS: A qualitative short-term longitudinal study was conducted, using a sample of 29 smokers allocated to one of the 2 apps, Quit Genius or Smokefree. Each user underwent 2 one-to-one semistructured interviews, 1 week apart. Thematic analysis was carried out, and important themes were identified. Descriptive statistics regarding participants' perceptions and health behavior in relation to smoking cessation are also provided. RESULTS: The thematic analysis resulted in five higher themes and several subthemes. Participants were generally more positive about Quit Genius's features, as well as about its design and information engagement and quality. Quit Genius users reported increased motivation to quit smoking, as well as greater willingness to continue using their allocated app after 1 week. Moreover, these participants demonstrated preliminary changes in their smoking behavior, although this was in the context of our limited sample, not yet allowing for the finding to be generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the use of CBT in the context of mHealth apps as a feasible and potentially effective smoking cessation tool. mHealth apps must be well developed, preferably with an underlying behavioral change mechanism, to promote positive health behavior change. Digital CBT has the potential to become a powerful tool in overcoming current health care challenges. The present results should be replicated in a wider sample using the apps for a longer period so as to allow for generalizability. Further research is also needed to focus on the effect of greater personalization on behavioral change and on understanding the psychological barriers to the adoption of new mHealth solutions.