OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the association of unprocessed red meat, poultry, and processed meat intake with mortality and major CVD.
METHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study is a cohort of 134,297 individuals enrolled from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Food intake was recorded using country-specific validated FFQs. The primary outcomes were total mortality and major CVD. HRs were estimated using multivariable Cox frailty models with random intercepts.
RESULTS: In the PURE study, during 9.5 y of follow-up, we recorded 7789 deaths and 6976 CVD events. Higher unprocessed red meat intake (≥250 g/wk vs. <50 g/wk) was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14) or major CVD (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.11; P-trend = 0.72). Similarly, no association was observed between poultry intake and health outcomes. Higher intake of processed meat (≥150 g/wk vs. 0 g/wk) was associated with higher risk of total mortality (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.10; P-trend = 0.009) and major CVD (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.98; P-trend = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: In a large multinational prospective study, we did not find significant associations between unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and mortality or major CVD. Conversely, a higher intake of processed meat was associated with a higher risk of mortality and major CVD.
METHOD: This systematic review used the preferred reporting items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled and quasi-experimental studies published from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Marital self-disclosure interventions were conducted with both cancer patients and their spouses. Studies published in a language other than English or Chinese, and studies below a quality grade of C were excluded. Data were extracted through a standardized data collection form, and two reviewers independently extracted and evaluated the data. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and a third reviewer adjudicated in case of disagreement. The data were synthesized by vote counting based on direction of effect according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the review. Based on quality evaluation, three studies were categorized as grade A (good), and ten studies were grade B (moderate). Seven studies reported moderate rates of participant refusal and attrition. The structure and topics of marital self-disclosure varied across different studies. The five studies had various prespecified disclosure topics, such as fear of cancer recurrence, benefit finding, and emotional distress. The overall results suggest that marital self-disclosure interventions can improve physical and psychological health, enhance marital relationships, and increase self-disclosure ability.
CONCLUSION: The limited number of studies, small sample sizes, diverse intervention strategies, and methodological heterogeneity weakened the evidence base for the effectiveness of marital self-disclosure interventions. Therefore, further high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are recommended to confirm the effectiveness of such interventions. These studies should also evaluate the interventions' long-term impact, analyze optional topics and methods, identify key features, and explore the development of the best intervention program.