Suchergebnisse

The detailed work histories of the individual workers composing the Pliofilm cohort represent a unique resource for estimating the dose‐respoonse for leukemia that may follow occupational exposure to benzene. In this paper, we report the results of analyzing the updated Pliofilm cohort using the proportional hazards model, a more sophisticated technique that uses more of the available exposure data than the conditional logistic model used by Rinsky et al. The more rigorously defined exposure estimates derived by Paustenbach et al. are consistent with those of Crump and Allen in giving estimates of the slope of the leukemogenic dose‐response that are not as steep as the slope resulting from the exposure estimates of Rinsky et al. We consider estimates of 0.3‐0.5 additional leukemia deaths per thousand workers with 45 ppm‐years of cumulative benzene exposure to be the best estimates currently available of leukemia risk from occupational exposure to benzene. These risks were estimated in the proportional hazards model when the exposure estimates of Crump and Allen or of Paustenbach et al. were used to derive a cumulative concentration‐by‐time metric.

BACKGROUND: Malaria and HIV are common infections in Africa and cause substantial morbidity and mortality in pregnant women. We aimed to assess the association of malaria with anemia in pregnant women and to explore the joint effects of malaria and HIV infection on anemia in pregnant women. METHODS: We used nationally representative, cross-sectional demographic and health surveys (DHS) that were conducted between 2012 and 2017 across 7 countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gambia, Ghana, Mali, Senegal and Togo). The outcome variables were anemia (defined as a hemoglobin concentration < 110 g/L), and hemoglobin concentration on a continuous scale, in pregnant women at the time of the interview. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to account for the nested structure of the data. We adjusted models for individual covariates, with random effects of the primary sampling unit nested within a country. RESULTS: A total of 947 pregnant women, ages, 15–49 y, were analyzed. Prevalence of malaria only, HIV only, and malaria- HIV coinfection in pregnant women was 31% (95% CI: 28.5 to 34.5%, n = 293), 1.3% (95% CI: 0.77 to 2.4%, n = 13) and 0.52% (95% CI: 0.02 to 1.3%, n = 5) respectively. Overall prevalence of anemia was 48.3% (95% CI: 45.1 to 51.5%). The anemia prevalence in pregnant women with malaria infection only was 56.0% (95% CI: 50.1 to 61.7%); HIV infection only, 62.5% (95% CI: 25.9 to 89.8%); malaria- HIV coinfection, 60.0 (95% CI: 17.0–92.7%) and without either infection, 44.6% (95% CI: 40.7 to 48.6%). In the fully adjusted models, malaria infection was associated with 27% higher prevalence of anemia (95% CI of prevalence ratio: 1.12 to 1.45; p = 0.004), and 3.4 g/L lower hemoglobin concentration (95% CI: - 5.01 to − 1.79; p = 0.03) compared to uninfected pregnant women. The prevalence of HIV infection and malaria-HIV coinfection was too low to allow meaningful analysis of their association with anemia or hemoglobin concentration. CONCLUSION: Malaria was ...

Purpose: To compare COVID-19 related knowledge, perceptions, and preferred information sources between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Web-based. Subjects: Convenience sample of Pennsylvanian adults. Measures: Primary outcomes were binary responses to 15 COVID-19 knowledge questions weighted by a Likert scale assessing response confidence. Analysis: Generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess comparisons between clinical decision makers (CDM), non-clinical decision makers working in healthcare (non-CDM) and non-healthcare workers (non-HCW). Results: CDMs (n = 91) had higher overall knowledge than non-CDMs (n = 854; OR 1.81 [1.51, 2.17], p < .05). Overall knowledge scores were not significantly different between non-CDMs (n = 854) and non-HCW (n = 4,966; OR 1.03 [0.97, 1.09], p > .05). Conclusion: The findings suggest a need for improved education about COVID-19 for healthcare workers who are not clinical decision makers, as they play key roles in patient perceptions and compliance with preventive medicine during primary care visits.

PURPOSE: To explore public knowledge, understanding of public health recommendations, perceptions, and trust in information sources related to COVID-19. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of central Pennsylvanian adults evaluated self-reported knowledge, and a convergent, mixed methods design was used to assess beliefs about recommendations, intended behaviors, perceptions, and concerns related to infectious disease risk, and trust of information sources. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 5,948 adults. The estimated probability of correct response for the basic knowledge score, weighted with confidence, was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80). Knowledge was significantly higher in patients with higher education and nonminority race. While the majority of respondents reported that they believed following CDC recommendations would decrease the spread of COVID-19 in their community and intended to adhere to them, only 65.2% rated social isolation with the highest level of belief and adherence. The most trusted information source was federal public health websites (42.8%). Qualitative responses aligned with quantitative data and described concerns about illness, epidemiologic issues, economic and societal disruptions, and distrust of the executive branch's messaging. The survey was limited by a lack of minority representation, potential selection bias, and evolving COVID-19 information that may impact generalizability and interpretability. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about COVID-19 and intended adherence to behavioral recommendations were high. There was substantial distrust of the executive branch of the federal government, however, and concern about mixed messaging and information overload. These findings highlight the importance of consistent messaging from trusted sources that reaches diverse groups.