Changing sustainable diet behaviours during the COVID-19 Pandemic: inequitable outcomes across a sociodemographically diverse sample of adults.

The objective of this study was to describe changes in sustainable dietary behaviours (those that support environmental, economic, and physical health) among a sample of US adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and to examine differences in changes by individuals' race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Therefore, a cross-sectional online survey study was conducted in April 2021 (N = 1,488, mean age = 42.7 (SD = 12.6)) receiving outpatient care from Michigan Medicine, the University of Michigan health system. Enrolment quotas were established to ensure a diverse sample-one-third of participants identified as African American/Black, one-third Hispanic/Latino, one-third White, and one-third low-income. Participants reported engaging in more behaviours that are supportive of a sustainable diet one year into the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before. This is particularly true regarding ecologically and economically sustaining behaviours such as taking fewer trips to the grocery store, increased use of home grocery delivery, increased cooking at home, and greater consumption of healthy foods. Not all behaviour changes promoted sustainable food systems; namely, the use of farmer's markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) declined. White and high-income participants were more likely than African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, and low-income individuals to engage in ecologically and economically sustainable dietary behaviours during the pandemic. Meanwhile, African American/Black participants reported large increases in physical health sustainable dietary behaviours. To support the continuation of greater engagement with sustainable diets, policies that increase access to public transportation, limit the frequency with which consumers have groceries delivered, increase work-from-home options, and improve access for low-income populations should be prioritised.

Association of active mobilisation variables with adverse events and mortality in patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mobilisation during critical illness is now included in multiple clinical practice guidelines. However, a large, randomised trial and systematic review have recently identified an increased probability of adverse events and mortality in patients who received early active mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to determine the effects of mobilisation compared with usual care on adverse events and mortality in an acute ICU setting. In subgroup analyses, we specifically aimed to investigate possible sources of harm, including the timing and duration of mobilisation achieved, ventilation status, and admission diagnosis. METHODS: In this systematic review with frequentist and Bayesian analyses, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PEDro electronic databases, as well as clinical trial registries (ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov), from inception to March 16, 2023, without language restrictions. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials that examined active mobilisation compared with either no mobilisation or mobilisation commencing later, or at a lower frequency or intensity, in adults who were critically ill during or after a period of mechanical ventilation in an acute ICU setting. Two authors independently screened reports, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 1). The primary outcome was the number of adverse events that occurred during the implementation of mobilisation, with the effect of mobilisation on mortality being the secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated in R (version 4.0.3) using random-effects modelling, with Bayesian analysis completed to calculate the probability of treatment harm (ie, RR >1). Subgroup analyses were completed to investigate the association of various factors of mobilisation on adverse events and mortality: duration of mobilisation (longer [≥20 min per day] vs shorter [<20 min per day]), timing of commencement (early [≤72 h from ICU admission] vs late [>72 h from ICU admission]), ventilation status at commencement (all patients mechanically ventilated vs all patients extubated), and ICU admission diagnosis (surgical vs medical). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022369272. FINDINGS: After title and abstract screening of 14 440 studies and review of 466 full texts, 67 trials with 7004 participants met inclusion criteria, with 59 trials contributing to the meta-analysis. Of the 67 included studies, 15 (22%) did not mention adverse events and 13 (19%) reported no adverse events occurring across the trial period. Overall, we found no effect of mobilisation compared with usual care on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 1·09 [95% CI 0·69-1·74], p=0·71; I2 91%; 32 731 events, 20 studies; very low certainty), with a 2·96% occurrence rate (693 events in 23 395 intervention sessions; 25 studies). Mobilisation did not have any effect on mortality (RR 0·98 [95% CI 0·87-1·12], p=0·81; I2 0%; n=6218, 58 studies; moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis was hindered by the large amount of data that could not be allocated and analysed, making the results hypothesis generating only. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of mobilisation in the ICU was associated with a less than 3% chance of an adverse event occurring and was not found to increase adverse events or mortality overall, providing reassurance for clinicians about the safety of performing this intervention. Subgroup analyses did not clearly identify any specific variable of mobilisation implementation that increased harm. FUNDING: None.

The Effect of Mobilization at 6 Months after Critical Illness - Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and safety of early active mobilization compared with usual care regarding long-term outcomes for adult critically ill survivors remain uncertain. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials comparing early active mobilization versus usual care in critically ill adults. The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital to day 180 after pooling data using random effects modeling. We also performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to describe the treatment effect in probability terms. Secondary outcomes were mortality, physical function, strength, health-related quality of life at 6 months, and adverse events. RESULTS: Fifteen trials from 11 countries were included with data from 2703 participants. From six trials (1121 participants) reporting the primary outcome, the pooled mean difference was an increase of 4.28 days alive and out of hospital to day 180 in those patients who received early active mobilization (95% confidence interval, −4.46 to 13.03; I2=41%). Using Bayesian analyses with vague priors, the probability that the intervention increased days alive and out of hospital was 75.1%. In survivors, there was a 95.1% probability that the intervention improved physical function measured through a patient-reported outcome measure at 6 months (standardized mean difference, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.32; I2=0%). Although no treatment effect was identified on any other secondary outcome, there was a 66.4% possibility of increased adverse events with the implementation of early active mobilization and a 72.2% chance it increased 6-month mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Use of early active mobilization for critically ill adults did not significantly affect days alive and out of hospital to day 180. Early active mobilization was associated with improved physical function in survivors at 6 months; however, the possibility that it might increase mortality and adverse events needs to be considered when interpreting this finding. (PROSPERO number, CRD42022309650.)

The perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of early mobilisation within a multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial: A qualitative process evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluation within clinical trials provides an assessment of the study implementation's accuracy and quality to explain causal mechanisms and highlight contextual factors associated with variation in outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators of implementing early mobilisation (EM) within a trial. METHODS: This is a qualitative process evaluation study within the Trial of Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM) phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Semistructured interviews were conducted remotely with multiprofessional clinicians (physiotherapists, medical staff, and nursing staff) involved in the delivery of the TEAM intervention at Australian hospitals participating in the TEAM study. Inductive coding was used to establish themes which were categorised into the Behaviour system involving domains of Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation (COM-B), which allowed barriers and enablers affecting EM to be identified. FINDINGS: Semistructured interviews were conducted in three different states of Australia. There were 16 participants, including 10 physiotherapists, five physicians, and one nurse. The key themes that facilitated EM were mentoring, champions, additional staff, organisation of the environment, cultural changes, communication, and documented safety criteria. In contrast, the main factors that hindered EM were lack of expertise and confidence in delivering EM, heavy sedation, interdisciplinary conflicts, and perceived risks related to EM. CONCLUSION: A wide range of barriers and facilitators that influenced EM within the TEAM study were identified using the COM-B framework. Many of these have been previously identified in the literature; however, participation in the study was viewed positively by multidisciplinary team members.

Pediatric neuromuscular disorders: Care considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19, the respiratory and frequently systemic disease caused by the novel SARS-COV-2 virus, was first recognized in December 2019 and quickly spread to become a pandemic and world-wide public health emergency over the subsequent 3-4 months. While COVID-19 has a very low morbidity rate across approximately 80% of the population, it has a high morbidity and mortality rate in the remaining 20% of the population.1 These numbers have put a significant strain on medical systems around the world. Patients with neuromuscular diseases such as those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), tend to be more medically fragile and have higher health care needs than the general population. Respiratory insufficiency, cardiac disease, obesity, and immunocompromised status due to chronic steroid treatments in certain patient populations with neuromuscular conditions are specific risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease. In general, the pediatric population has shown to be less severely impacted with lower infection rates and lower morbidity and mortality rates than the adult population, however, as expected, children with underlying medical conditions are at higher risk of morbidity from COVID-19 than their peers.2 Many patients with neuromuscular disease also rely heavily on caregiver support through their lifetime and thus maintaining the health of their primary caregivers is also a significant consideration in the health and well-being of the patients. This paper will address routine and emergency medical care, rehabilitation services, and other considerations for the pediatric patient with a neuromuscular condition during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pediatric tone management.

Tone management is one of the primary roles of a pediatric physiatrist. Hypertonicity frequently inhibits normal movement patterns in children with central nervous system lesions but at times can reinforce muscle group firing and be useful for a child's function. Treatment approaches should be individualized based on functional goals, degree of impairment, interference with care, and type and location of hypertonicity. Treatment plans should be created in collaboration with all individuals caring for the child. There are many causes of hypertonicity as well as many nonsurgical and surgical treatments. Historical and current evidence-based treatments are reviewed.

Effects of water availability and pest pressures on tea (Camellia sinensis) growth and functional quality.

Extreme shifts in water availability linked to global climate change are impacting crops worldwide. The present study examines the direct and interactive effects of water availability and pest pressures on tea (Camellia sinensis; Theaceae) growth and functional quality. Manipulative greenhouse experiments were used to measure the effects of variable water availability and pest pressures simulated by jasmonic acid (JA) on tea leaf growth and secondary metabolites that determine tea quality. Water treatments were simulated to replicate ideal tea growing conditions and extreme precipitation events in tropical southwestern China, a major centre of tea production. Results show that higher water availability and JA significantly increased the growth of new leaves while their interactive effect was not significant. The effect of water availability and JA on tea quality varied with individual secondary metabolites. Higher water availability significantly increased total methylxanthine concentrations of tea leaves but there was no significant effect of JA treatments or the interaction of water and JA. Water availability, JA treatments or their interactive effects had no effect on the concentrations of epigallocatechin 3-gallate. In contrast, increased water availability resulted in significantly lower concentrations of epicatechin 3-gallate but the effect of JA and the interactive effects of water and JA were not significant. Lastly, higher water availability resulted in significantly higher total phenolic concentrations but there was no significant impact of JA and their interaction. These findings point to the fascinating dynamics of climate change effects on tea plants with offsetting interactions between precipitation and pest pressures within agro-ecosystems, and the need for future climate studies to examine interactive biotic and abiotic effects.