Explore the vast range of titles available.

Both social isolation and loneliness are associated with increased mortality, but it is uncertain whether their effects are independent or whether loneliness represents the emotional pathway through which social isolation impairs health. We therefore assessed the extent to which the association between social isolation and mortality is mediated by loneliness. We assessed social isolation in terms of contact with family and friends and participation in civic organizations in 6,500 men and women aged 52 and older who took part in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing in 2004–2005. A standard questionnaire measure of loneliness was administered also. We monitored all-cause mortality up to March 2012 (mean follow-up 7.25 y) and analyzed results using Cox proportional hazards regression. We found that mortality was higher among more socially isolated and more lonely participants. However, after adjusting statistically for demographic factors and baseline health, social isolation remained significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.48 for the top quintile of isolation), but loneliness did not (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.09). The association of social isolation with mortality was unchanged when loneliness was included in the model. Both social isolation and loneliness were associated with increased mortality. However, the effect of loneliness was not independent of demographic characteristics or health problems and did not contribute to the risk associated with social isolation. Although both isolation and loneliness impair quality of life and well-being, efforts to reduce isolation are likely to be more relevant to mortality.

Links between positive affect (PA) and health have predominantly been investigated by using measures of recollected emotional states. Ecological momentary assessment is regarded as a more precise measure of experienced well-being. We analyzed data from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, a representative cohort of older men and women living in England. PA was assessed by aggregating momentary assessments over a single day in 3,853 individuals aged 52 to 79 y who were followed up for an average of 5 y. Respondents in the lowest third of PA had a death rate of 7.3%, compared with 4.6% in the medium-PA group and 3.6% in the high-PA group. Cox proportional-hazards regression showed a hazard ratio of 0.498 (95% confidence interval, 0.345–0.721) in the high-PA compared with the low-PA group, adjusted for age and sex. This was attenuated to 0.646 (95% confidence interval, 0.436–0.958) after controlling for demographic factors, negative affect, depressed mood, health indicators, and health behaviors. Negative affect and depressed mood were not related to survival after adjustment for covariates. These findings indicate that experienced PA, even over a single day, has a graded relationship with survival that is not caused by baseline health status or other covariates. Momentary PA may be causally related to survival, or may be a marker of underlying biological, behavioral, or temperamental factors, although reverse causality cannot be conclusively ruled out. The results endorse the value of assessing experienced affect, and the importance of evaluating interventions that promote happiness in older populations.

Although many studies have investigated the associations between stress-related psychosocial factors and cancer outcomes, the results have been inconclusive. The authors of this Review use meta-analytical methods from 165 studies to determine if there is an association, and discuss the results indicating that stress-related psychosocial factors have an adverse effect on cancer incidence and survival. A substantial body of research has investigated the associations between stress-related psychosocial factors and cancer outcomes. Previous narrative reviews have been inconclusive. In this Review, we evaluated longitudinal associations between stress and cancer using meta-analytic methods. The results of 165 studies indicate that stress-related psychosocial factors are associated with higher cancer incidence in initially healthy populations ( P = 0.005); in addition, poorer survival in patients with diagnosed cancer was noted in 330 studies ( P <0.001), and higher cancer mortality was seen in 53 studies ( P <0.001). Subgroup meta-analyses demonstrate that stressful life experiences are related to poorer cancer survival and higher mortality but not to an increased incidence. Stress-prone personality or unfavorable coping styles and negative emotional responses or poor quality of life were related to higher cancer incidence, poorer cancer survival and higher cancer mortality. Site-specific analyses indicate that psychosocial factors are associated with a higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer survival in patients with breast, lung, head and neck, hepatobiliary, and lymphoid or hematopoietic cancers. These analyses suggest that stress-related psychosocial factors have an adverse effect on cancer incidence and survival, although there is evidence of publication bias and results should be interpreted with caution. Key Points Combined effects from large numbers of studies suggest that stress-related psychosocial factors have an adverse effect on cancer incidence, prognosis, and mortality, although the presence of publication bias means that these results should be interpreted with caution Stressful life experiences were related to decreased cancer survival and increased mortality Stress-prone personality or unfavorable coping styles and emotional distress or poor quality of life were related to increased cancer incidence, reduced cancer survival and increased cancer mortality; in particular, depression seemed to be the primary driver of adverse effects of emotional distress Poor social support did not contribute to cancer outcomes Psychosocial stress was associated with an increased incidence of lung cancer and reduced survival in patients with breast, lung, head and neck, hepatobiliary, and lymphoid or hematopoietic cancers.

Prevention of obesity requires policies that work. In this Series paper, we propose a new way to understand how food policies could be made to work more effectively for obesity prevention. Our approach draws on evidence from a range of disciplines (psychology, economics, and public health nutrition) to develop a theory of change to understand how food policies work. We focus on one of the key determinants of obesity: diet. The evidence we review suggests that the interaction between human food preferences and the environment in which those preferences are learned, expressed, and reassessed has a central role. We identify four mechanisms through which food policies can affect diet: providing an enabling environment for learning of healthy preferences, overcoming barriers to the expression of healthy preferences, encouraging people to reassess existing unhealthy preferences at the point-of-purchase, and stimulating a food-systems response. We explore how actions in three specific policy areas (school settings, economic instruments, and nutrition labelling) work through these mechanisms, and draw implications for more effective policy design. We find that effective food-policy actions are those that lead to positive changes to food, social, and information environments and the systems that underpin them. Effective food-policy actions are tailored to the preference, behavioural, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of the people they seek to support, are designed to work through the mechanisms through which they have greatest effect, and are implemented as part of a combination of mutually reinforcing actions. Moving forward, priorities should include comprehensive policy actions that create an enabling environment for infants and children to learn healthy food preferences and targeted actions that enable disadvantaged populations to overcome barriers to meeting healthy preferences. Policy assessments should be carefully designed on the basis of a theory of change, using indicators of progress along the various pathways towards the long-term goal of reducing obesity rates.

Omnivores have the advantage of a variety of food options but face a challenge in identifying foods that are safe to eat. Not surprisingly, therefore, children show a relative aversion to new foods (neophobia) and a relative preference for familiar, bland, sweet foods. While this may in the past have promoted survival, in the modern food environment it could have an adverse effect on dietary quality. This review examines the evidence for genetic and environmental factors underlying individual differences in children's food preferences and neophobia. Twin studies indicate that neophobia is a strongly heritable characteristic, while specific food preferences show some genetic influence and are also influenced by the family environment. The advantage of the malleability of human food preferences is that dislike of a food can be reduced or even reversed by a combination of modelling and taste exposure. The need for effective guidance for parents who may be seeking to improve the range or nutritional value of foods accepted by their children is highlighted.

There has been considerable research into the impact of chronic illness on health-related quality of life. However, few studies have assessed the impact of different chronic conditions on general quality of life (QOL). The objective of this paper was to compare general (rather than health-related) QOL and affective well-being in middle aged and older people across eight chronic illnesses. This population-based, cross-sectional study involved 11,523 individuals aged 50 years and older, taking part in wave 1 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. General QOL was assessed using the CASP-19, happiness was evaluated using two items drawn from the GHQ-12, and depression was measured with the CES-D. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender and wealth, were performed. General QOL was most impaired in people with stroke (mean 37.56, CI 36.73-38.39), and least in those reporting cancer (mean 41.78, CI 41.12-42.44, respectively), compared with no illness (mean 44.15, CI 43.92-44.39). Stroke (mean 3.65, CI 3.58-3.73) was also associated with the greatest reduction in positive well-being whereas diabetes (mean 3.81, CI 3.76-3.86) and cancer were least affected (3.85, CI 3.79-3.91), compared with no illness (mean 3.97, CI 3.95-4.00). Depression was significantly elevated in all conditions, but was most common in chronic lung disease (OR 3.04, CI 2.56-3.61), with more modest elevations in those with osteoarthritis (OR 2.08, CI 1.84-2.34) or cancer (OR 2.07, CI 1.69-2.54). Multiple co-morbidities were associated with greater decrements in QOL and affective well-being. The presence of chronic illness is associated with impairments in broader aspects of QOL and affective well-being, but different conditions vary in their impact. Further longitudinal work is needed to establish the temporal links between chronic illness and impairments in QOL and affective well-being.

BackgroundEthnic minority women are less likely to attend cervical screening.AimTo explore self-perceived barriers to cervical screening attendance among ethnic minority women compared to white British women.DesignQualitative interview study.SettingCommunity groups in ethnically diverse London boroughs.MethodsInterviews were carried out with 43 women from a range of ethnic minority backgrounds (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, Black British, Black other, White other) and 11 White British women. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework analysis.ResultsFifteen women had delayed screening/had never been screened. Ethnic minority women felt that there was a lack of awareness about cervical cancer in their community, and several did not recognise the terms ‘cervical screening’ or ‘smear test’. Barriers to cervical screening raised by all women were emotional (fear, embarrassment, shame), practical (lack of time) and cognitive (low perceived risk, absence of symptoms). Emotional barriers seemed to be more prominent among Asian women. Low perceived risk of cervical cancer was influenced by beliefs about having sex outside of marriage and some women felt a diagnosis of cervical cancer might be considered shameful. Negative experiences were well remembered by all women and could be a barrier to repeat attendance.ConclusionsEmotional barriers (fear, embarrassment and anticipated shame) and low perceived risk might contribute to explaining lower cervical screening coverage for some ethnic groups. Interventions to improve knowledge and understanding of cervical cancer are needed in ethnic minority communities, and investment in training for health professionals may improve experiences and encourage repeat attendance for all women.

Excess adiposity is a risk factor for poorer cancer survival, but there is uncertainty over whether losing weight reduces the risk. We conducted a critical review of the literature examining weight loss and mortality in overweight or obese cancer survivors. We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles reporting associations between weight loss and mortality (cancer-specific or all-cause) in overweight/obese patients with obesity-related cancers. Where available, data from the same studies on non-overweight patients were compared. Five articles describing observational studies in breast cancer survivors were included. Four studies reported a positive association between weight loss and mortality in overweight/obese survivors, and the remaining study observed no significant association. Results were similar for non-overweight survivors. Quality assessment indicated high risk of bias across studies. There is currently a lack of observational evidence that weight loss improves survival for overweight and obese cancer survivors. However, the potential for bias in these studies is considerable and the results likely reflect the consequences of disease-related rather than intentional weight loss. There is a need for stronger study designs, incorporating measures of intentionality of weight loss, and extended to other cancers.

Purpose As cancer survival rates improve, there is growing interest in the role of lifestyle in longer-term health and quality of life (QoL). This study examined the prevalence of health-related behaviours, and the associations between health behaviours and QoL, in colorectal cancer survivors. Methods Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer within the last 5 years identified from five London (UK) hospitals (TV = 495) completed a survey that included measures of fruit and vegetable (F& V) intake, physical activity, smoking status and alcohol consumption. The EORTCQLQ-C30 questionnaire was used to index QoL. Results The majority of respondents were overweight/obese (58%), not physically active (< 5 bouts of moderate activity per week; 82%) and ate fewer than five portions of F& V a day (57%). Few were smokers (6%) or heavy drinkers (weekly alcohol units > 21 for men and > 14 for women; 8%). Physical activity showed the strongest association with functional QoL and was also associated with lower fatigue, pain and insomnia (P < 0.05). F& V intake was associated with higher global QoL and physical, role and cognitive function (P<; 0.05). Using a total health behaviour score (calculated by assigning one point for each of the following behaviours: not smoking, consuming ≤5 portions of F& V a day, being physically active and having moderate alcohol consumption), there was a linear relationship with global QoL, physical function and fatigue (P<0.05). Conclusion A high proportion of colorectal cancer survivors in the UK have suboptimal health behaviours, and this is associated with poorer QoL.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. We tested the hypothesis that only one flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between 55 and 64 years of age can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 14 UK centres. 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would accept an invitation for screening, were randomly allocated to the intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or the control group (not contacted). Randomisation by sequential number generation was done centrally in blocks of 12, with stratification by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The primary outcomes were the incidence of colorectal cancer, including prevalent cases detected at screening, and mortality from colorectal cancer. Analyses were intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN28352761. 113 195 people were assigned to the control group and 57 237 to the intervention group, of whom 112 939 and 57 099, respectively, were included in the final analyses. 40 674 (71%) people underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. During screening and median follow-up of 11·2 years (IQR 10·7–11·9), 2524 participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (1818 in control group vs 706 in intervention group) and 20 543 died (13 768 vs 6775; 727 certified from colorectal cancer [538 vs 189]). In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence in the intervention group was reduced by 23% (hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·70–0·84) and mortality by 31% (0·69, 0·59–0·82). In per-protocol analyses, adjusting for self-selection bias in the intervention group, incidence of colorectal cancer in people attending screening was reduced by 33% (0·67, 0·60–0·76) and mortality by 43% (0·57, 0·45–0·72). Incidence of distal colorectal cancer (rectum and sigmoid colon) was reduced by 50% (0·50, 0·42–0·59; secondary outcome). The numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145–277) and 489 (343–852), respectively. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit. Medical Research Council, National Health Service R&D, Cancer Research UK, KeyMed.