BACKGROUNDS:Alcohol use among adolescents has become a major public health problem in the past decade and has large short- and long-term consequences on their health. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of longitudinal cohort studies that have analyzed the association between the parent-child relationship (PCR) and change in alcohol use during adolescence.METHODS: A search of the literature from 1985 to July 2011 was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, and EMBASE in order to identify longitudinal, general population studies regarding the influence of the PCR on alcohol use during adolescence. The studies were screened, and the quality of the relevant studies was assessed. A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results.RESULTS: Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified. Five studies found that a negative PCR was associated with higher levels of alcohol use. Another seven papers only found this association for certain subgroups such as boys or girls, or a specific age group. The remaining sixteen studies did not find any association.CONCLUSIONS: We found weak evidence for a prospective association between the PCR and adolescent alcohol use. Further research to the association of the PCR with several types of alcohol use (e.g., initiation or abuse) and to the potential reversed causality of the PCR and alcohol use is required.
MULTIFILE
QUESTIONS: What are the perceived reasons for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to be physically active or sedentary? Are those reasons related to the actual measured level of physical activity?DESIGN: A mixed-methods study combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.PARTICIPANTS: People with mild to very severe COPD.OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants underwent a semi-structured interview and physical activity was measured by a triaxial accelerometer worn for one week.RESULTS: Of 118 enrolled, 115 participants (68% male, mean age 65 years, mean FEV1 57% predicted, mean modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score 1.4) completed the study. The most frequently reported reason to be physically active was health benefits, followed by enjoyment, continuation of an active lifestyle from the past, and functional reasons. The most frequently reported reason to be sedentary was the weather, followed by health problems, and lack of intrinsic motivation. Mean steps per day ranged between 236 and 18 433 steps. A high physical activity level was related to enjoyment and self-efficacy for physical activity. A low physical activity level was related to the weather influencing health, financial constraints, health and shame.CONCLUSION: We identified important facilitators to being physically active and barriers that could be amenable to change. Furthermore, we distinguished three important potential strategies for increasing physical activity in sedentary people with COPD, namely reducing barriers and increasing insight into health benefits, tailoring type of activity, and improvement of self-efficacy.
LINK
Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce.Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices.Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them.Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.
![Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419024525240089.f5_0352_4033_99e3_b9d3476cb04f_110664_gowri_gopalakrishn-thumbnail-400x300.png)
