Suchergebnisse

AbstractObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to describe how the COVID‐19 pandemic influenced the lives of families with preschool‐age children, both broadly and with respect to familial roles, relationships, and routines.BackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic placed a significant caregiving burden on families with young children, but the voices and experiences of these families have not been well documented in the scientific literature. Preschool‐age children undergo rapid brain development during the early childhood period, and thus these children may be especially vulnerable to the effects of pandemic‐related stress.MethodWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study with caregivers of preschool‐age children. A semi‐structured interview was used to elicit information about the COVID‐19 pandemic's influence on family functioning, routines, and relationships. We used inductive thematic analysis to code the data and identify themes and subthemes.ResultsThirty‐five women participated in the study. Women described both positive and negative influences of the pandemic on family life. Themes included: 1) disrupted routines and the parent juggling act, 2) rattled relationships and close connections, 3) the pile‐up of pandemic related stressors, and 4) coping strategies and "coming out on the other side."Conclusions & ImplicationsA deeper understanding of the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on family life provides critical insight necessary to inform targeted intervention efforts and improve long‐term outcomes for families with young children.

Purpose. To replicate results of a pilot smoking cessation study and demonstrate applicability to a worksite setting. Methods. Smokers employed by a community hospital participated in an onsite smoking cessation program. Participants used an "impediment profiling" instrument to rate personal barriers to cessation and were assigned to between one and seven interventions. Cessation was defined as carbon monoxide concentration in expired air of ≤ 10 ppm. Results. Fifty-one employees participated. Subjects lost to follow-up were assumed to be smoking, resulting in a 39.2% 1-year quit rate; 47.5% of program completers (n = 40) were smoke-free at 1 year. Self-reported quit rate at 2.5 years was 25.5% (17 lost to attrition assumed to be smoking) with 38.2% of program completers smoke-free. Discussion. This study suggests that impediment profiling holds promise for smoking cessation and demonstrates feasibility in a worksite setting. Further evaluation of this intervention in the context of randomized controlled trials is warranted.

Objective. To test the effectiveness of a smoking cessation program based on "impediment profiling," the elucidation of an individual participant's personal barriers, with provision of tailored interventions accordingly. Methods. A literature search was conducted to identify established impediments to smoking cessation. A long impediment profiler (LIP) was developed from validated survey instruments and used as a screening tool to identify individuals' barriers to quitting. Once barriers were identified, participants were assigned to up to seven interventions. Self-reported smoking cessation was confirmed with measurements of carbon monoxide concentrations in expired air of ≤10 ppm. Results. Nineteen adults participated in the pilot program. At the year 1 mark, 63.2% of the study population was smoke-free. The mean number of impediments of the study population was 3.5 ± 1.5. There was a negative association between subjects' quit status and the following impediments: stress (p = .0061), anxiety (p = .0445), and depression (p < .001). No single impediment was predictive of quit status. Conclusions. Impediment profiling as a basis for tailored smoking cessation intervention is associated with a high quit rate in this initial study, and it appears promising. Long-term follow-up is warranted, as is replication in a larger cohort with a concurrent control group.

Abstract A systematic review was conducted using Samueli Institute's Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL © ) process to determine the evidence base for melatonin as an agent to optimize sleep or improve sleep quality, and generalize the results to a military, civilian, or other healthy, active, adult population. Multiple databases were searched yielding 35 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the review's inclusion criteria, which were assessed for methodological quality as well as for melatonin effectiveness. The majority of included studies were high quality (83.0%). Overall, according to Grading Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, weak recommendations were made for preventing phase shifts from jet lag, for improving insomnia in both healthy volunteers and individuals with a history of insomnia, and for initiating sleep and/or improving sleep efficacy. Based on the literature to date, no recommendations for use in shift workers or to improve hormonal phase shift changes in healthy people can be made at this time. Larger and longer-duration RCTs utilizing well characterized products are needed to warrant melatonin recommendations in young, healthy adults.