Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved into one of the most impactful health crises in modern history, compelling researchers to explore innovative ways to efficiently collect public health data in a timely manner. Social media platforms have been explored as a research recruitment tool in other settings; however, their feasibility for collecting representative survey data during infectious disease epidemics remain unexplored. Objectives This study has two aims 1) describe the methodology used to recruit a nationwide sample of adults residing in the United States (U.S.) to participate in a survey on COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, and practices, and 2) outline the preliminary findings related to recruitment, challenges using social media as a recruitment platform, and strategies used to address these challenges. Methods An original web-based survey informed by evidence from past literature and validated scales was developed. A Facebook advertisement campaign was used to disseminate the link to an online Qualtrics survey between March 20–30, 2020. Two supplementary male-only and racial minority- targeted advertisements were created on the sixth and tenth day of recruitment, respectively, to address issues of disproportionate female- and White-oriented gender- and ethnic-skewing observed in the advertisement’s reach and response trends. Results In total, 6602 participant responses were recorded with representation from all U.S. 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The advertisements cumulatively reached 236,017 individuals and resulted in 9609 clicks (4.07% reach). Total cost of the advertisement was $906, resulting in costs of $0.09 per click and $0.18 per full response (completed surveys). Implementation of the male-only advertisement improved the cumulative percentage of male respondents from approximately 20 to 40%. Conclusions The social media advertisement campaign was an effective and efficient strategy to collect large scale, nationwide data on COVID-19 within a short time period. Although the proportion of men who completed the survey was lower than those who didn’t, interventions to increase male responses and enhance representativeness were successful. These findings can inform future research on the use of social media recruitment for the rapid collection of survey data related to rapidly evolving health crises, such as COVID-19.

Background In the United States, approximately 11% of households were food insecure prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study aims to describe the prevalence of food insecurity among adults and households with children living in the United States during the pandemic. Methods This study utilized social media as a recruitment platform to administer an original online survey on demographics and COVID-related food insecurity. The survey was disseminated through an advertisement campaign on Facebook and affiliated platforms. Food insecurity was assessed with a validated six-item United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food Security Survey Module, which was used to create a six-point numerical food security score, where a higher score indicates lower food security. Individual-level participant demographic information was also collected. Logistic regressions (low/very-low compared with high/marginal food security) were performed to generate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95%CIs for food insecurity and select demographic characteristics. Results Advertisements reached 250,701 individuals and resulted in 5,606 complete surveys. Overall, 14.7% of participants self-identified as having low or very low food security in their households, with higher prevalence (17.5%) among households with children. Unemployment (AOR:1.76, 95%CI:1.09–2.80), high school or lower education (AOR:2.25, 95%CI:1.29–3.90), and low income (AOR[$30,000-$50,000]:5.87, 95%CI:3.35–10.37; AOR[< $30,000]:10.61, 95%CI:5.50–20.80) were associated with higher odds of food insecurity in multivariable models among households with children (and the whole sample). Conclusions These data indicate exacerbation of food insecurity during the pandemic. The study will be instrumental in guiding additional research and time-sensitive interventions targeted towards vulnerable food insecure subgroups.

This study assessed the modifying role of primary source of COVID-19 information in the association between knowledge and protective behaviors related to COVID-19 among adults living in the United States (US). Data was collected from 6,518 US adults through an online cross-sectional self-administered survey via social media platforms in April 2020. Linear regression was performed on COVID-19 knowledge and behavior scores, adjusted for sociodemographic factors. An interaction term between knowledge score and primary information source was included to observe effect modification by primary information source. Higher levels of knowledge were associated with increased self-reported engagement with protective behaviors against COVID-19. The primary information source significantly moderated the association between knowledge and behavior, and analyses of simple slopes revealed significant differences by primary information source. This study shows the important role of COVID-19 information sources in affecting people’s engagement in recommended protective behaviors. Governments and health agencies should monitor the use of various information sources to effectively engage the public and translate knowledge into behavior change during an evolving public health crisis like COVID-19.

To present treatment coverage rates and risk factors associated with uncorrected refractive error in Australia. Thirty population clusters were randomly selected from all geographic remoteness strata in Australia to provide samples of 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40 years and older and 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 years and older. Presenting visual acuity was measured and those with vision loss (worse than 6/12) underwent pinhole testing and hand-held auto-refraction. Participants whose corrected visual acuity improved to be 6/12 or better were assigned as having uncorrected refractive error as the main cause of vision loss. The treatment coverage rates of refractive error were calculated (proportion of participants with refractive error that had distance correction and presenting visual acuity better than 6/12), and risk factor analysis for refractive correction was performed. The refractive error treatment coverage rate in Indigenous Australians of 82.2% (95% CI 78.6-85.3) was significantly lower than in non-Indigenous Australians (93.5%, 92.0-94.8) (Odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 0.35-0.75). In Indigenous participants, remoteness (OR 0.41, 0.19-0.89 and OR 0.55, 0.35-0.85 in Outer Regional and Very Remote areas, respectively), having never undergone an eye examination (OR 0.08, 0.02-0.43) and having consulted a health worker other than an optometrist or ophthalmologist (OR 0.30, 0.11-0.84) were risk factors for low coverage. On the other hand, speaking English was a protective factor (OR 2.72, 1.13-6.45) for treatment of refractive error. Compared to non-Indigenous Australians who had an eye examination within one year, participants who had not undergone an eye examination within the past five years (OR 0.08, 0.03-0.21) or had never been examined (OR 0.05, 0.10-0.23) had lower coverage. Interventions that increase integrated optometry services in regional and remote Indigenous communities may improve the treatment coverage rate of refractive error. Increasing refractive error treatment coverage rates in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians through at least five-yearly eye examinations and the provision of affordable spectacles will significantly reduce the national burden of vision loss in Australia.

We assessed the validity and reliability of self-report of eye disease in participants with unilateral vision loss (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 in the worse eye and equal to or better than 6/12 in the better eye) or bilateral vision loss (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 in the better eye) in Australia’s National Eye Health Survey. In total, 1738 Indigenous Australians and 3098 non-Indigenous Australians were sampled from 30 sites. Participants underwent a questionnaire and self-reported their eye disease histories. A clinical examination identified whether participants had cataract, age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. For those identified as having unilateral or bilateral vision loss (438 Indigenous Australians and 709 non-Indigenous Australians), self-reports were compared with examination results using validity and reliability measures. Reliability was poor for all four diseases (Kappa 0.06 to 0.37). Measures of validity of self-report were variable, with generally high specificities (93.7% to 99.2%) in all diseases except for cataract (63.9 to 73.1%) and low sensitivities for all diseases (7.6% in Indigenous Australians with diabetic retinopathy to 44.1% of non-Indigenous Australians with cataract). This study suggests that self-report is an unreliable population-based research tool for identifying eye disease in those with vision loss.

To present the prevalence of self-reported diabetes in Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants in the National Eye Health Survey. 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50-98 years and 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40-92 years were examined in 30 randomly selected sites, stratified by remoteness. A history of diabetes was obtained using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. 13.91% (431/3098) of non-Indigenous Australians and 37.11% (645/1738) of Indigenous Australians had self-reported diabetes. The age-adjusted prevalence of self-reported diabetes for non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians was 11.49% and 43.77%, respectively (p <0.001). The prevalence of self-reported diabetes increased markedly with age (OR = 1.04 per year, p = 0.017). Indigenous Australians living in very remote areas were more likely to have self-reported diabetes than those in major city areas (OR = 1.61, p = 0.038). The prevalence of self-reported diabetes in Australia was high, with the prevalence being almost 4 times higher in Indigenous Australians compared with non-Indigenous Australians. With the prevalence of diabetes likely to increase, the results of this national survey may inform future policy, planning and funding allocation to assist in controlling the diabetes epidemic.

To present the rates of referral of participants in the National Eye Health Survey (NEHS) for further eye care. A national sample of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50-98 and 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40-92 years living in 30 randomly selected sites was recruited using a door-to-door approach. Participants completed a general questionnaire and a series of eye tests, including vision and anterior segment assessment, intra-ocular pressure measurement, visual field testing and fundus photography. A predefined protocol was used to guide the referral of participants for follow up eye care. An ophthalmologist was on-call to assist with the triaging of participants. Of the total sample, 32.1% (994/3098) of non-Indigenous participants and 43.6% (757/1738) of Indigenous participants were referred for further eye care (p<0.001). A significant difference in referral rates for Indigenous Australians was observed between regions of differing geographic remoteness [range = 32.2% (Inner Regional)-60.4% (Very Remote), p <0.001]. After adjusting for covariates, males (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.46), older age (OR = 1.02 per year, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02) and longer time since previous eye examination (OR = 1.15 per year, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.19) were associated with higher rates of eye care referral in the non-Indigenous population. In the Indigenous population, older age (OR = 1.02 per year, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03), self-reported diabetes (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.37-2.12), greater geographical remoteness (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.09-1.29) and longer time since previous eye examination (OR = 1.10 per year, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.13) were associated with a higher rate of referral after multivariate adjustments. A total of 25 participants (1.4%) were referred for urgent follow-up of potentially sight threatening conditions. Our data has identified several high risk groups that required ophthalmic referral including older Australians, non-Indigenous men, Indigenous Australians with self-reported diabetes and those residing in very remote populations who may benefit from improvements in the provision and/or uptake of eye health services. Future longitudinal research is warranted to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a referral protocol within a population-based research setting.

Dysregulation of high-frequency neuronal oscillations has been implicated in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Chronic methamphetamine (METH) use can induce psychosis similar to paranoid schizophrenia. The current study in mice aimed to determine the effect of chronic METH treatment on ongoing and evoked neuronal oscillations. C57BL/6 mice were treated with METH or vehicle control for three weeks and implanted with extradural recording electrodes. Two weeks after the last METH injection, mice underwent three EEG recording sessions to measure ongoing and auditory-evoked gamma and beta oscillatory power in response to an acute challenge with METH (2 mg/kg), the NMDA receptor antagonist MK-801 (0.3 mg/kg), or saline control. A separate group of mice pretreated with METH showed significantly greater locomotor hyperactivity to an acute METH challenge, confirming long-term sensitisation. Chronic METH did not affect ongoing or evoked gamma or beta power. Acute MK-801 challenge reduced ongoing beta power whereas acute METH challenge significantly increased ongoing gamma power. Both MK-801 and METH challenge suppressed evoked gamma power. Chronic METH treatment did not modulate these acute drug effects. There were minor effects of chronic METH and acute METH and MK-801 on selected components of event-related potential (ERP) waves. In conclusion, chronic METH treatment did not exert neuroplastic effects on the regulation of cortical gamma oscillations in a manner consistent with schizophrenia, despite causing behavioural sensitisation.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a heightened need to understand health information seeking behaviors to address disparities in knowledge and beliefs about the crisis. This study assessed sociodemographic predictors of the use and trust of different COVID-19 information sources, as well as the association between information sources and knowledge and beliefs about the pandemic. An online survey was conducted among US adults in two rounds during March and April 2020 using advertisement-based recruitment on social media. Participants were asked about their use of 11 different COVID-19 information sources as well as their most trusted source of information. The selection of COVID-related knowledge and belief questions was based on past empirical literature and salient concerns at the time of survey implementation. The sample consisted of 11,242 participants. When combined, traditional media sources (television, radio, podcasts, or newspapers) were the largest sources of COVID-19 information (91.2%). Among those using mainstream media sources for COVID-19 information (n=7811, 69.5%), popular outlets included CNN (24.0%), Fox News (19.3%), and other local or national networks (35.2%). The largest individual information source was government websites (87.6%). They were also the most trusted source of information (43.3%), although the odds of trusting government websites were lower among males (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.63) and those aged 40-59 years and ≥60 years compared to those aged 18-39 years (AOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.92; AOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.71). Participants used an average of 6.1 sources (SD 2.3). Participants who were male, aged 40-59 years or ≥60 years; not working, unemployed, or retired; or Republican were likely to use fewer sources while those with children and higher educational attainment were likely to use more sources. Participants surveyed in April were markedly less likely to use (AOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.35-0.46) and trust (AOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.47-0.56) government sources. The association between information source and COVID-19 knowledge was mixed, while many COVID-19 beliefs were significantly predicted by information source; similar trends were observed with reliance on different types of mainstream media outlets. COVID-19 information source was significantly determined by participant sociodemographic characteristics and was also associated with both knowledge and beliefs about the pandemic. Study findings can help inform COVID-19 health communication campaigns and highlight the impact of using a variety of different and trusted information sources.

Correspondence to Joshua Foreman; foremanj@unimelb.edu.au As the myopia epidemic gathers pace, with 5 billion people expected to be myopic and 1 billion predicted to have sight-threatening high myopia by 2050, there is an urgent need to identify targets for early intervention to mitigate the onset and progression of myopia among children.1 Research has suggested that insufficient time spent outdoors in childhood is one of myopia’s major modifiable risk factors,2 and public health interventions that increase time spent outdoors may therefore be the most scalable and efficacious preventative strategies. Physical activity exerts myriad positive effects on paediatric health and may protect against other eye diseases including glaucoma,4 and there are compelling reasons to expect that it may also attenuate axial elongation independently of time spent outdoors, perhaps through promotion of choroidal perfusion and thickening,5 although this has been disputed.6 A 2017 systematic review by Suhr Thykjær and colleagues attempted to clarify the relationship between physical activity and myopia, but the authors were unable to draw strong conclusions owing to methodological incomparability between the limited sample of only nine studies, the use of bias-prone self-report questionnaires to quantify physical activity in many instances and, most conspicuously, the fact that physical activity in most studies either explicitly occurred outdoors or whether it occurred indoors or outdoors was not reported.3 Therefore, while the review concluded that physical activity may be protective based on one case–control,7 two cohort8 9 and three cross-sectional studies,10–12 supervening effects of spending time outdoors, rather than physical activity per se, could not be ruled out, especially considering that if most physical activity is conducted outdoors, then time spent outdoors and time engaged in physical activity may covary almost linearly. [...]Danish21 and Taiwanese17 surveys found that ≥3 hours and ≥7 hours, respectively, of weekly physical activity reduced myopia risk by 18–43%, and a Czech cohort study found that ≥3 hours daily of sport reduced axial length.19 An English study found that children who were already myopic engaged in less physical activity than emmetropes 1 year after refractive examination, suggesting a reverse causal relationship between myopia and physical activity, whereby myopes tend to engage in less physical activity due to visual problems or hindrance by spectacles.16 Of these studies, seven did not investigate physical activity independently of time outdoors,15–17 19–22 and only three measured physical activity objectively with accelerometers or pedometers.16 18 22 The only study to-date investigating physical activity as a myopia intervention reported that children at one Chinese school who jogged for 30 minutes daily for a year had 33% lower incidence of myopia and less myopic progression (−0.05±0.97 vs −0.33±0.70 dioptres) at 1-year follow-up than controls at another school, but that at 3-year follow-up (2 years after cessation of physical activity), the groups converged due to rebound myopisation in the intervention group.20 Although this suggests that in order for physical activity to affect myopia it must endure throughout childhood, jogging occurred exclusively outdoors, resulting in the same risk as other studies of confounding by time spent outdoors. Purely visual aspects of the outdoor environment such as relaxed accommodation and more uniform dioptric space may explain how time spent outdoors protects against myopia without the influence of physical activity.23 Potentially emmetropising metabolic changes induced by sunlight exposure rather than physical activity have also been demonstrated, including retinal dopaminergic neurotransmission and vitamin D production, although mechanistic explanations and evidence for the role of the latter are weak.23 24 Investigators who found lower rates of myopia in farm workers compared to educated hospital staff and students in a remote region of Brazil postulated that higher literacy accounted for the greater burden of myopia among the hospital workers.25 While literacy has been causally linked to myopia26 (likely because of the need to spend more time engaged in near work to improve literacy), farm work tends to require more physical activity and occurs in outdoor environments, and the confounding protective role of these exposures cannot be ruled out.