METHODS: A three-phase community-based survey among a disproportionate random sample of 15,000 individuals (9,000 Chinese, 3,000 Malays, 3,000 Indians) aged 50 years and above who live in central Singapore was conducted. In phase 1, trained interviewers conducted a door-to-door survey using a validated 10-question questionnaire. In phase 2, medical specialists examined participants who screened positive to any of the questions. Participants suspected to have PD had their diagnosis confirmed in phase 3 by a movement disorders specialist.
RESULTS: The participation rate was 67% among 22,279 eligible individuals. Forty-six participants with PD were identified of which 16 were newly diagnosed cases. The prevalence rate of PD for those aged 50 and above in Singapore was 0.30% (95% CI: 0.22 to 0.41), age-adjusted to US 1970 census. The prevalence rates increased significantly with age. The age-adjusted prevalence rates among Chinese (0.33%, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.48), Malays (0.29%, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.67), and Indians (0.28%, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.67) were the same (p = 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of PD in Singapore was comparable to that of Western countries. Race-specific rates were also similar to previously reported rates and similar among the three races. Environmental factors may be more important than racially determined genetic factors in the development of PD.
OBJECTIVE: To create a comprehensive conceptual model of behavioural change related to T2D medication compliance.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study will be conducted at a regional primary care clinic using a mixed-method technique. First, a Grounded Theory qualitative inquiry will be used to investigate predictors of medication adherence in T2D patients. Consequently, the elements derived from the interview will be incorporated into the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework to generate an integrated behavioural model. This model will then be used to quantify the factors related to compliance with medication amongst T2D patients.
DISCUSSION: The framework developed here could help in the design of policies to optimize T2D control by identifying lapses in patients' intake of diabetic medications. This can be done by exploring the patients' fundamental and unarticulated belief system via a naturalistic approach adopted in this study. The properties of the framework can be replicated in other settings to serve as a benchmark for quality improvement in T2D patient care.
METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for all randomized, interventional, phase II-IV trials that were registered between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009 and included adults with Alzheimer's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease. Publications from these trials were identified by extensive online searching and contact with authors, and multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify characteristics associated with trial discontinuation and non-publication.
RESULTS: In all, 362 eligible trials were identified, of which 12% (42/362) were discontinued. 28% (91/320) of completed trials remained unpublished after 5 years. Trial discontinuation was independently associated with number of patients (P = 0.015; more likely in trials with ≤100 patients; odds ratio 2.65, 95% confidence interval 1.21-5.78) and phase of trial (P = 0.009; more likely in phase IV than phase III trials; odds ratio 3.90, 95% confidence interval 1.41-10.83). Trial non-publication was independently associated with blinding status (P = 0.005; more likely in single-blind than double-blind trials; odds ratio 5.63, 95% confidence interval 1.70-18.71), number of centres (P = 0.010; more likely in single-centre than multi-centre trials; odds ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval 1.25-4.99), phase of trial (P = 0.041; more likely in phase II than phase IV trials; odds ratio 2.88, 95% confidence interval 1.04-7.93) and sponsor category (P = 0.001; more likely in industry-sponsored than university-sponsored trials; odds ratio 5.05, 95% confidence interval 1.87-13.63).
CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of non-dissemination bias in randomized trials of interventions for neurodegenerative diseases. Associations with trial discontinuation and non-publication were similar to findings in other diseases. These biases may distort the therapeutic information available to inform clinical practice.
DESIGN: A 4-site, prospective randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted among prison and jail inmates with HIV and OUD transitioning to the community from September 2010 through March 2016.
METHODS: Eligible participants (N = 93) were randomized 2:1 to receive 6 monthly injections of XR-NTX (n = 66) or placebo (n = 27) starting at release and observed for 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion that maintained or improved VS (<50 copies/mL) from baseline to 6 months.
RESULTS: Participants allocated to XR-NTX significantly improved to VS (<50 copies/mL) from baseline (37.9%) to 6 months (60.6%) (P = 0.002), whereas the placebo group did not (55.6% at baseline to 40.7% at 6 months P = 0.294). There was, however, no statistical significant difference in VS levels at 6 months between XR-NTX (60.6%) vs. placebo (40.7%) (P = 0.087). After controlling for other factors, only allocation to XR-NTX (adjusted odds ratio = 2.90; 95% confidence interval = 1.04 to 8.14, P = 0.043) was associated with the primary outcome. Trajectories in VS from baseline to 6 months differed significantly (P = 0.017) between treatment groups, and the differences in the discordant values were significantly different as well (P = 0.041): the XR-NTX group was more likely than the placebo group to improve VS (30.3% vs. 18.5%), maintain VS (30.3% vs. 27.3), and less likely to lose VS (7.6% vs. 33.3%) by 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX improves or maintains VS after release to the community for incarcerated people living with HIV with OUD.
METHODS: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.