Gene-gene and gene-environmental interaction of dopaminergic system genes in Pakistani children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder influenced by genetic and environmental factors. This study examined the specific gene variants, dopamine transporter 1 (DAT1) rs6350, dopamine receptor D3 (DRD3) rs6280, dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) rs6277, and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) rs4633, in relation to ADHD among Pakistani children by exploring the potential gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Methods: A total of 100 cases of ADHD and 100 healthy children were recruited. The tetra-primer amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) assays were designed for genotyping the selected variants in both groups, and their association with ADHD was determined in different genetic models. Gene-gene and gene-environmental interactions were determined by the multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) method. Results: The DAT1 rs6350 SNV AA genotype showed a significantly increased risk for ADHD in the codominant and recessive models. Conversely, the AG genotype demonstrated a protective factor for ADHD in the codominant and overdominant models. The DRD3 rs6280 T allele exhibited a decreased risk for ADHD, and the TT genotype showed a reduced risk in the recessive and log-additive models. No association between the DRD2 rs6277 and COMT rs4633 SNVs with ADHD was found in our population. The MDR analysis of the best three-fold interaction model showed redundancy between DAT1 rs6350 and DRD3 rs6280; however, the risk was increased with the gender variable, which showed a weak synergistic interaction with these SNVs. Conclusion: Genes associated with dopaminergic neurotransmission may contribute to the occurrence of ADHD. Furthermore, gene-gene and gene-environmental interactions may increase ADHD susceptibility.

COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours among health and social care workers in the UK: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The UK began delivering its COVID-19 vaccination programme on 8 December 2020, with health and social care workers (H&SCWs) given high priority for vaccination. Despite well-documented occupational exposure risks, however, there is evidence of lower uptake among some H&SCW groups. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach-involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews-to gain insight into COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours amongst H&SCWs in the UK by socio-demographic and employment variables. 1917 people were surveyed- 1656 healthcare workers (HCWs) and 261 social care workers (SCWs). Twenty participants were interviewed. FINDINGS: Workplace factors contributed to vaccination access and uptake. SCWs were more likely to not be offered COVID-19 vaccination than HCWs (OR:1.453, 95%CI: 1.244-1.696). SCWs specifically reported uncertainties around how to access COVID-19 vaccination. Participants who indicated stronger agreement with the statement 'I would recommend my organisation as a place to work' were more likely to have been offered COVID-19 vaccination (OR:1.285, 95%CI: 1.056-1.563). Those who agreed more strongly with the statement 'I feel/felt under pressure from my employer to get a COVID-19 vaccine' were more likely to have declined vaccination (OR:1.751, 95%CI: 1.271-2.413). Interviewees that experienced employer pressure to get vaccinated felt this exacerbated their vaccine concerns and increased distrust. In comparison to White British and White Irish participants, Black African and Mixed Black African participants were more likely to not be offered (OR:2.011, 95%CI: 1.026-3.943) and more likely to have declined COVID-19 vaccination (OR:5.550, 95%CI: 2.294-13.428). Reasons for declining vaccination among Black African participants included distrust in COVID-19 vaccination, healthcare providers, and policymakers. CONCLUSION: H&SCW employers are in a pivotal position to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination access, by ensuring staff are aware of how to get vaccinated and promoting a workplace environment in which vaccination decisions are informed and voluntary.

The psychosocial experiences of breast cancer amongst Black, South Asian and White survivors: do differences exist between ethnic groups?

BACKGROUND: Very little UK-based research has examined breast cancer-related experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic populations, and we do not know whether the psychosocial impact of diagnosis and treatment in this group is any different to that of White women. Therefore, this study examined similarities and differences amongst Black, South Asian and White breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was conducted; 173 breast cancer survivors (80 White, 53 South Asian and 40 Black) completed a questionnaire, which assessed psychological functioning, social support, body image and beliefs about cancer. RESULTS: Significant differences (p < 0.05) were reported between White and South Asian participants: compared with White women, South Asian participants reported higher levels of anxiety and depression, poorer quality of life and held higher levels of internal and fatalistic beliefs pertaining to cancer. Black and South Asian women reported higher levels of body image concerns than White women, and held stronger beliefs that God was in control of their cancer. South Asian women turned to religion as a source of support more than Black and White women. CONCLUSION: This study enhances current understanding of the experience and impact of breast cancer amongst Black and South Asian women, and demonstrates similarities and differences between the ethnic groups. The findings highlight implications for healthcare professionals, particularly in relation to providing culturally sensitive care and support to their patients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Registering ischaemic heart disease: are we meeting the targets for South Asians?

BACKGROUND: Registration on a primary care disease register is a necessary first step for the provision of systematic care for ischaemic heart disease (IHD). We examined whether there is any potential bias in IHD registration based upon the ethnic origin of the patient. METHODS: 'Observed' rates of ischaemic heart disease registration from 12 general practices in Bristol were contrasted with national 'expected' rates derived from the Health Survey for England, 1999, with the aim of comparing rates of registration between patients whose countries of origin were South Asian and non-South Asian. Ethnicity was classified by the patients' surname. Data were stratified by age, sex and ethnicity. RESULTS: Overall, no major differences in 'observed' and 'expected' rates of registration between South Asian and non-South Asians were observed. In general, however, 'observed' rates were lower than the 'expected' rates for both groups. CONCLUSION: We found no overall bias in IHD registration based upon the patient's ethnic origin but we did observe generally low rates of IHD registration overall.