Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveOffice environments have been causally linked to workplace-related illnesses and stress, yet little is known about how office workstation type is linked to objective metrics of physical activity and stress. We aimed to explore these associations among office workers in US federal office buildings.MethodsWe conducted a wearable, sensor-based, observational study of 231 workers in four office buildings. Outcome variables included workers’ physiological stress response, physical activity and perceived stress. Relationships between office workstation type and these variables were assessed using structural equation modelling.ResultsWorkers in open bench seating were more active at the office than those in private offices and cubicles (open bench seating vs private office=225.52 mG (31.83% higher on average) (95% CI 136.57 to 314.46); open bench seating vs cubicle=185.13 mG (20.16% higher on average) (95% CI 66.53 to 303.72)). Furthermore, workers in open bench seating experienced lower perceived stress at the office than those in cubicles (−0.27 (9.10% lower on average) (95% CI −0.54 to −0.02)). Finally, higher physical activity at the office was related to lower physiological stress (higher heart rate variability in the time domain) outside the office (−26.12 ms/mG (14.18% higher on average) (95% CI −40.48 to −4.16)).ConclusionsOffice workstation type was related to enhanced physical activity and reduced physiological and perceived stress. This research highlights how office design, driven by office workstation type, could be a health-promoting factor.

We conducted a field study using multiple wearable devices on 231 federal office workers to assess the impact of the indoor environment on individual wellbeing. Past research has established that the workplace environment is closely tied to an individual’s wellbeing. Since sound is the most-reported environmental factor causing stress and discomfort, we focus on quantifying its association with physiological wellbeing. Physiological wellbeing is represented as a latent variable in an empirical Bayes model with heart rate variability measures—SDNN and normalized-HF as the observed outcomes and with exogenous factors including sound level as inputs. We find that an individual’s physiological wellbeing is optimal when sound level in the workplace is at 50 dBA. At lower (<50dBA) and higher (>50dBA) amplitude ranges, a 10 dBA increase in sound level is related to a 5.4% increase and 1.9% decrease in physiological wellbeing respectively. Age, body-mass-index, high blood pressure, anxiety, and computer use intensive work are person-level factors contributing to heterogeneity in the sound-wellbeing association.

Background Untreated perinatal mood and anxiety disorders (PMAD) have short- and long-term health and social consequences; online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions can reduce symptoms. Despite partner support being protective online interventions rarely target couples. This study builds on research on an existing CBT-based intervention, the Mothers and Babies Online Course ( eMB), by testing its feasibility with prenatal couples. Methods We conducted a pilot, randomized, controlled feasibility trial using a 1:1 parallel design. To be eligible, participant dyads were pregnant people (between 13–30 weeks gestation and with a score of 10 or greater on either the GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scale indicating elevated symptoms of anxiety or depression) and their cohabitating partners, living in Missouri, with access to the internet; both in the dyad consented to participate. Recruitment occurred via Facebook ads, flyers, and a snowball approach. The intervention group received eMB, and the control group received a list of community resources. We examined retention and adherence data extracted from eMB analytics and study databases. All participants were given depression and anxiety scales at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks to test preliminary efficacy; satisfaction and acceptability were measured at trial end (i.e., eight weeks) and via interview. Results There were 441 people who responded to recruitment materials, 74 pregnant people were screened; 19 partners did not complete enrolment, and 25 dyads were ineligible. There were 15 dyads per group ( N  = 30) who enrolled; all completed the study. The survey response rate was 90% but partners required nearly twice the number of reminders. No participant completed all lessons. Mean depression and anxiety scores dropped over time for dyads in control ( M  = -1.99, -1.53) and intervention ( M  = -4.80, -1.99). Intervention pregnant people’s anxiety significantly decreased ( M  = -4.05; 95% CI [0.82, 7.27]) at time two compared to control. Twelve pregnant people and four partners participated in post-intervention interviews and suggested improvements for eMB. Conclusion Online dyadic interventions can potentially reduce PMAD symptoms. However, to feasibly study eMB with couples, strategies to increase program adherence are necessary. Tailoring interventions to overtly include partners may be advantageous. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05867680, 19/05/2023.

ObjectiveTo identify subgroups with similar social determinants of health (SDOH) characteristics using latent class analysis (LCA) and examine their associations with physical and mental health, cognitive function and missed workdays at 3 and 6 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection. We hypothesised that intersecting SDOH factors would differentially influence COVID-19-related health outcomes across subgroups.DesignProspective cohort study from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), with longitudinal data collection and cross-sectional analyses at baseline, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups.SettingMulticentre registry across eight US academic medical centres (Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New Haven, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle).ParticipantsAdults aged ≥18 years, fluent in English or Spanish, with self-reported acute COVID-19 symptoms and a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test within 42 days before enrolment (9 December 2020 to 12 August 2022), and access to an internet-connected device. Exclusions included incarceration, inability to provide informed consent, lack of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or no internet access. Of 3791 eligible participants with complete baseline data, 2897 (76.4%) completed the 3-month follow-up and 2666 (70.3%) completed the 6-month follow-up; most were aged 18–49 years (74–75%), female (66–67%), white (86.6–87.5%) and non-Hispanic (86.6–87.5%).Outcome measuresPrespecified primary outcomes were physical and mental health (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 V.2.1 T-scores for depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function and social participation), cognitive function (PROMIS Cognitive Function Short Form 8 T-scores) and missed workdays due to illness (binary: >1 week vs ≤1 week, from a single-item survey). All measures were self-reported and collected at baseline, 3 months and 6 months; no changes from protocol.ResultsLCA identified a 4-class model as optimal (lowest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) after evaluating 1–7 class models; significant demographic differences (χ2 p<0.001 for gender, age, race, ethnicity, education and income distributions)). Sensitivity analysis using four age groups (18–29, 30–49, 50–64, ≥65 years) yielded higher BIC (45 430.8) than three groups (18–49, 50–64, ≥65 years; BIC=42 150.9), confirming the primary model. Class 3 (middle-aged, high-income non-Hispanic; n=599 (15.8%)) was the reference group. Compared with Class 3, Class 1 (lower-income, predominantly Hispanic young to middle-aged adults; n=499 (13.2%)) and Class 2 (lower-income, older, predominantly Black non-Hispanic; n=1828 (48.2%)) exhibited significantly worse outcomes across physical and mental health domains (eg, Class 1 3-month anxiety β=4.41 (95% CI 3.25 to 5.56, p<0.001); Class 2 3-month depression β=3.58 (95% CI 2.53 to 4.64, p<0.001)). Classes 1 and 2 also reported significantly worse cognitive function at both time points (eg, Class 1 3-month β=−3.29 (95% CI −4.77 to −1.82, p<0.001)) and Class 2 had significantly higher odds of missed workdays at 6 months (OR=1.853 (95% CI 1.192 to 2.880, p=0.006)). In contrast, Class 4 (young to middle-aged, highly educated, high-income non-Hispanic; n=865 (22.8%)) consistently reported the most favourable outcomes, including better physical function (3-month β=2.04, p<0.001) and lower pain interference compared with the reference group.ConclusionsIn this US prospective cohort, SDOH-based subgroups showed persistent disparities in health outcomes post-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Findings highlight the urgent need for intersectional approaches to address systemic inequities in post-COVID-19 recovery.Trial registration numberNCT04610515.

Even in such instances, mental illness makes it difficult for afflicted probationers to comply with court orders. [...]their POs must overcome many obstacles to access services to treat their symptoms and criminogenic needs and thus reduce the risk of recidivism (Prins & Draper, 2009). According to Veysey (1996), \"if community supervision staff adhere to rigid sanctions for technical violations with regard to treatment compliance, special-needs clients - particularly those with mental illness - are likely to fail\" (p. 158).