OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between sweet-beverage consumption (including total, sugar-sweetened, and artificially sweetened soft drink and juice and nectar consumption) and pancreatic cancer risk.
DESIGN: The study was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. A total of 477,199 participants (70.2% women) with a mean age of 51 y at baseline were included, and 865 exocrine pancreatic cancers were diagnosed after a median follow-up of 11.60 y (IQR: 10.10-12.60 y). Sweet-beverage consumption was assessed with the use of validated dietary questionnaires at baseline. HRs and 95% CIs were obtained with the use of multivariable Cox regression models that were stratified by age, sex, and center and adjusted for educational level, physical activity, smoking status, and alcohol consumption. Associations with total soft-drink consumption were adjusted for juice and nectar consumption and vice versa.
RESULTS: Total soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.07), sugar-sweetened soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.08), and artificially sweetened soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.10) were not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Juice and nectar consumption was inversely associated with pancreatic cancer risk (HR per 100 g/d: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.99); this association remained statistically significant after adjustment for body size, type 2 diabetes, and energy intake.
CONCLUSIONS: Soft-drink consumption does not seem to be associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Juice and nectar consumption might be associated with a modest decreased pancreatic cancer risk. Additional studies with specific information on juice and nectar subtypes are warranted to clarify these results.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CMI on medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes in Qatar.
METHODS: We developed and customised CMI for all the anti-diabetic medications used in Qatar. A randomised controlled trial in which the intervention group patients (n = 66) received the customised CMI with usual care, while the control group patients (n = 74) received usual care only, was conducted. Self-reported medication adherence and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) were the primary outcome measures. Glycaemic control and medication adherence parameters were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months in both groups. Medication adherence was measured using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8).
RESULTS: Although the addition of CMI resulted in better glycaemic control, this did not reach statistical significance, possibly because of the short-term follow-up. The median MMAS-8 score improved from baseline (6.6 [IQR = 1.5]) to 6-month follow-up (7.0 [IQR = 1.00]) in the intervention group. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between the intervention and the control groups in terms of MMAS-8 score at the third visit (7.0 [IQR = 1.0]) vs 6.5 (IQR = 1.25; P-value = .010).
CONCLUSION: CMI for anti-diabetic medications when added to usual care has the potential to improve medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, providing better health communication and CMI to patients with diabetes is recommended.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among randomly-selected 715 female nurses in Malaysia using pencil-and-paper self-reported questionnaires.
RESULTS: The majority of participants were ever married (87.0%), having children (76.2%), and work in hospital setting (64.8%). The level of household stressors was generally similar between hospital and non-hospital nurses. However, hospital nurses significantly perceived higher level of workplace stressors. Shift work is significantly associated with higher level of household and workplace stressors among nurses in both groups. The level of stress was significantly higher among hospital nurses. Both household and workplace stressors explained about 40% of stress status in both hospital and non-hospital nurses.
CONCLUSION: Hospital nurses are at higher risk of having stressors and stress as compared to non-hospital nurses, probably due to higher proportion of them involved in shift work. Hospital nurses should be given high priority in mitigating stress among nurses.