METHODS: The quasi-experimental study was conducted in Tharparker and Umerkot districts, Sindh, Pakistan, in 2013-14, and comprised pregnant women in their earlier weeks of pregnancy. The enrolment and follow-up phase entailed 3 visits to each subject. Areas covered by lady health workers were designated as intervention areas, and those with non-LHW population were labelled as non-intervention areas.

RESULTS: Of the 1204 subjects, 600(49.8%) were in the intervention group and 604(50.2%) were in the nonintervention group. By the end of the follow-up phase, significantly more women had increased number of meals in the intervention group compared to the non-intervention group (p<0.001). There was a significantly higher increase in mean haemoglobin levels and body mass index of women in the intervention arm after 3 and 6 months of interventions (p<0.05). Significantly higher mean birth weight was recorded in intervention areas compared to nonintervention areas (p<0.05).

METHODS: Various combinations of keywords related to "digital health", "intervention", "workplace" and "developing country" were applied in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed articles in English language. Manual searches were performed to supplement the database search. The screening process was conducted in two phases and a narrative synthesis to summarise the data. The review protocol was written prior to undertaking the review (OSF Registry:10.17605/OSF.IO/QPR9J).

RESULTS: The search strategy identified 10,298 publications, of which 24 were included. Included studies employed the following study designs: randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 12), quasi-experimental (n = 4), pilot studies (n = 4), pre-post studies (n = 2) and cohort studies (n = 2). Most of the studies reported positive feedback of the use of digital wellness interventions in workplace settings.

Objective: This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the use of chia seed for a wide variety of health conditions.

Data Sources: A number of databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched systematically.

Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that assessed the clinical effects of chia seed consumption in human participants were included. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Data Extraction: Data on study design, blinding status, characteristics of participants, chia seed intervention, comparator, clinical assessment, duration of intake, interval of assessment, and study funding status were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Twelve trials were included. Participants included healthy persons, athletes, diabetic patients, and individuals with metabolic syndrome. Pooling of results showed no significant differences except for the following findings of subgroup analysis at higher doses of chia seed: (1) lower postprandial blood glucose level (mean difference [MD] of -33.95 incremental area under the curve [iAUC] [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -61.85, -6.05] and -51.60 iAUC [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -79.64, -23.56] at medium doses and high doses, respectively); (2) lower high-density lipoprotein in serum (MD of -0.10 mmol/L [95%CI, -0.20, -0.01]); and (3) lower diastolic blood pressure (MD of -7.14 mmHg [95%CI, -11.08, -3.19]). The quality of all evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was low or very low. All trials employed only surrogate markers as outcomes.

Conclusions: Future trials with improved methodological quality, well-described clinical events, and validated surrogate markers as outcomes are needed to support the potential health benefits of chia seed consumption.

METHODS: Four attributes (ie, the scientific proof of effectiveness, the scientific proof of safety, the source of recommendation, and cost) were identified from a systematic review and focus group interviews. They were used to develop a DCE questionnaire. Consumers at community pharmacies in Malaysia were asked to respond to 8 DCE choice sets. A conditional logit model was employed to obtain the relative importance of each attribute and to estimate respondents' WTP for nutraceuticals.

RESULTS: A total of 111 valid responses were analyzed. A negative constant term in the developed model indicated that generally the respondents preferred not to use nutraceuticals before they considered the study attributes. The respondents preferred nutraceuticals with no side effect, clear evidence of effectiveness, and recommendation of a healthcare professional. The respondents were willing to pay $252/month more for nutraceuticals proven with no side effect than for those without proof of safety, and $102/month more for nutraceuticals proven with clear effectiveness than for those without proof of effectiveness.

METHODS: We conducted a double-blinded, randomised controlled trial involving 651 rural primary schoolchildren (8-12 years) with VAD in Malaysia. The schoolchildren were randomised to receive either RPO-enriched biscuits (experimental group, n = 334) or palm olein-enriched biscuits (control group, n = 317) for 6-month duration.