Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Work absence”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

256 records · Page 15Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Using the OPTIMAL Theory to Optimize Aerodynamics in Respiratory Training for Healthy Adults and Individuals With Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning) theory is a motor learning framework proposing that optimizing intrinsic motivation enhances motor performance and learning. The theory identifies three key components-Enhanced Expectancies (EE), Autonomy Support (AS) and External Focus of Attention (EF)-which facilitate more efficient, goal-directed movement. These components have been shown to improve motor outcomes in limb-based tasks; however, their application to respiratory training, particularly in clinical contexts such as voice and swallowing therapy in patients with Parkinson's disease (pwPD), has not yet been systematically explored. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate whether implementing OPTIMAL theory strategies during a respiratory muscle strength training (RMST) task improves immediate respiratory motor performance in healthy adults and pwPD. Additionally, we aimed to examine the effects of these strategies on motivation and cognitive engagement. METHODS: This quasi-randomized, single-session trial included 47 participants: Healthy CONTROL (n = 17), Healthy OPTIMAL (n = 16) and PD OPTIMAL (n = 14). Healthy participants were quasi-randomly assigned to either intervention or control conditions, whereas pwPD completed the intervention only. All participants completed a single respiratory session that included baseline, practice and retention phases. Outcome measures included peak expiratory flow, cough peak expiratory flow, cognitive engagement (EEG-based Cognitive Engagement Index) and self-administered motivation questionnaire. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Exhalation force improved from baseline to retention in the Healthy OPTIMAL group (baseline: M = 296 L/min; retention: M = 338 L/min; p < 0.001) and the PD OPTIMAL group (baseline: M = 315 L/min; retention: M = 370 L/min; p < 0.0001), but not in the Healthy CONTROL group (p > 0.05). No significant changes in cough strength were observed in any group. No correlations were found between cognitive engagement and exhalation force or motivation scores. However, motivation increased more in the Healthy OPTIMAL group (Questionnaire 1: M = 57.2; Questionnaire 2: M = 60.7) and the PD OPTIMAL group (Questionnaire 1: M = 60.1; Questionnaire 2: M = 62.8) than in the Healthy CONTROL group (Questionnaire 1: M = 61.1; Questionnaire 2: M = 62.5). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Implementing the OPTIMAL theory enhances immediate respiratory motor performance in both healthy participants and pwPD. OPTIMAL theory has clinical value in voice and swallowing therapy, although further research is needed to establish long-term efficacy and clinical impact. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Motivation is a critical factor in rehabilitation. The OPTIMAL theory has been shown to improve both motivation and motor performance in limb-based tasks. Its impact on respiratory training, however, has not been previously examined. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This study shows that applying OPTIMAL strategies during a respiratory muscle strength training task significantly improved peak expiratory flow in both healthy adults and people with Parkinson's disease. What are the potential or clinical implications of this work? Integrating the OPTIMAL theory principles into respiratory therapy may enhance motor outcomes, supporting voice, swallowing and cough rehabilitation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Contact tracing for hepatitis C: perspectives of people with experience of substance use and hepatitis C on intervention acceptability.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is a major cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. In the UK, the principal risk factor for HCV is injecting drug use. The introduction of direct acting anti-virals (DAA's) have transformed HCV care, with cure rates of over 95%. However, HCV is often asymptomatic, and reinfection is a concern. Modelling and real-life studies demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for finding people who have acquired HCV through injecting drug use. However, it is not used routinely in the UK. This qualitative study was undertaken to assess the acceptability of a contact tracing approach to identify people who have injected drugs with an index patient recently diagnosed with HCV. METHODS: Twelve people with lived or living experience of injecting drug use and an HCV diagnosis were interviewed using semi-structured interview topic guides. Participants were purposefully selected according to the inclusion criteria and to ensure there was an even spread of male and female participants. Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, incorporating seven components (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity cost, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy) was used to analyse data from interview transcripts. RESULTS: A sample of 12 people who inject drugs in the UK indicated that a contact tracing approach was acceptable across two components of Sekhon's acceptability framework: affective attitude and ethicality. Participants broadly found the idea of tracing people who may be at risk of contracting HCV acceptable, and the approach aligned with their value systems. A contact tracing approach would help alleviate concerns about putting other people's lives at risk through HCV transmission and was seen as a 'sensible' way of finding people at risk. However, there were caveats to this acceptability. Contact tracing approaches delivered by mainstream health, or governmental organisations increased burden, opportunity costs and perceived effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for HCV, particularly within contexts of exclusion and criminalisation of people who inject drugs. Burden and opportunity costs were also affected by individual experiences and risks of violence, sexual violence and abuse. There was a lack of knowledge of contact tracing approaches amongst respondents, leading to a lack of intervention coherence and misunderstandings of what contact tracing was and how it would work. Trusted relationships with NGOs and HCV specialist nurses reduced burden and increased confidence and ability (self-efficacy) to engage with a contact tracing approach. CONCLUSION: People who inject drugs broadly perceive contact tracing as an acceptable method of finding people who are at risk of HCV. However, this acceptability is based on specific modes of delivery through trusted organisations. Findings further highlight the importance of naming and describing contact tracing approaches appropriately, as well as assessing and mitigating against potential risk to index patients, to increase self-efficacy and capacity to engage. Considering these findings, the potential for expanding existing contact tracing approaches should be explored to ensure the UK reaches and maintains its elimination targets.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Methods for defining equity-stratifying variables: a systematic review of validation studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Disease burden is often disproportionally higher among those who are socially disadvantaged by factors defined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (ie, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, with "Plus" covering features like age and disability). The accuracy and applicability of case definitions to identify these variables from administrative and clinical health data are unknown. We conducted a systematic review to explore how equity-stratifying variables, as categorized by the PROGRESS-Plus framework, have been defined and validated in epidemiologic studies using administrative health, population-level, or electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of the databases to 2024 for validation studies of equity-stratifying variables in adults using administrative health datasets, health registries, or EHR data. Titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full-text articles, were screened in duplicate by two reviewers for eligibility. The data sources utilized, algorithms employed, and their associated performance measures were extracted and synthesized from included studies. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design, equity-stratifying variable definition, and performance metrics, meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of the 9099 unique citations screened, 188 full texts were reviewed and 116 were included in this review. Most studies were published between 2019 and 2024 (n = 64, 55%) and were validation studies of race/ethnicity definitions that used race/ethnicity codes or surname list algorithms (n = 66, 57%). No studies examined religion. Regarding the reported performance measure estimates, the race/ethnicity/culture/language equity-stratifying variables category had the largest variability across sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen's Kappa. Occupation validation studies had the lowest variation in sensitivity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Despite an increasing number of publications reporting on the validation of equity-stratifying variables relevant to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, performance measures varied widely across studies. The significant heterogeneity in equity-stratifying variable definitions and methods used to validate them support the need for further rigorous validation of equity-stratifying variables in administrative and clinical health data. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Disease burden is often higher in people who experience financial hardships, lower level of education, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, and unstable housing. These social factors can be considered health equity factors and are important for understanding health inequalities. Health researchers often use large datasets, such as hospital or electronic health records (EHRs), to study these health equity factors. However, it is not clear how accurately these data sources capture information about people's social circumstances and how these factors are defined. In this study, we reviewed existing research to understand how health equity factors have been defined across health data sources and how accurate they are at measuring aspects of health equity and social disadvantage. Of the more than 9000 studies we identified, we included 116 that met our criteria for this systematic review. Most included studies focused on identifying race and ethnicity, often using codes or surname-based methods. We found that the accuracy of these methods varied widely across studies, meaning results may not always be reliable or comparable. Overall, our findings show that there are inconsistencies in how social factors are defined and measured in health data. This makes it difficult to fully understand and address health inequalities using routinely collected health data. More work is needed to develop and validate better quality and more consistent methods for capturing these important social factors.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

APOL1 kidney disease: a critical narrative review of molecular mechanisms, clinical heterogeneity, and the emerging therapeutic landscape.

BACKGROUND: The G1 and G2 variants of the APOL1 gene represent significant genetic risk factors for APOL1 kidney disease and contribute substantially to the excess burden of renal disease observed in individuals of African ancestry. Importantly, both variants exhibit incomplete penetrance, with only approximately 15-20% of high-risk genotype carriers ultimately developing overt nephropathy. OBJECTIVE: To provide a critically appraised, clinically oriented narrative synthesis of APOL1 kidney disease that (i) assigns an explicit certainty rating to each major mechanistic and clinical claim, (ii) identifies where published estimates diverge, where associations remain contested, and where conclusions have been overstated in the secondary literature, and (iii) aligns terminology, testing guidance and therapeutic expectations with the conclusions of the 2025 KDIGO Controversies Conference and with clinical trial data available to August 2026. METHODS: This literature narrative review was performed using a literature search of PubMed and Scopus focusing on APOL1-related nephropathy. Mainly studies published from 2010 to 2026 were considered; however, some selected historical papers from 2005 to 2010 were used for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and history. Used search terms were "APOL1," "APOL1 risk variants," "chronic kidney disease," AMPLITUDE trial, MZE829, HORIZON trial, "focal segmental glomerulosclerosis," "HIV-associated nephropathy," "podocyte injury," "inaxaplin," "VX-147," KDIGO 2025, and "antisense oligonucleotides." Trial status and topline results for agents in development were additionally verified against ClinicalTrials.gov registrations and sponsor disclosures. The literature search was last updated on 10 August 2026. The inclusion criteria of the study were peer-reviewed original articles, genome-wide association studies, randomised controlled trials, translational studies, mechanistic investigations, and high-quality review articles published in the English language. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts without peer review, duplicate papers, non-English publications with unreliable translation, and case reports with no relevance to the underlying mechanisms. More attention was paid to studies focusing on molecular pathogenesis of APOL1 nephropathy, second-hit pathophysiology, genotypes/phenotypes, and new therapies (e.g. inhibitors such as Inaxaplin). The review method and design have been prepared according to SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) criteria. Among eligible articles, priority was given to studies with larger sample sizes, more recent publication dates, higher-impact peer-reviewed journals, and direct clinical or mechanistic relevance to APOL1-associated nephropathy; where multiple studies addressed the same question, the most methodologically rigorous and most recent source was preferentially cited. To move beyond description, each principal claim carried forward into this review was assigned a qualitative certainty rating (high, moderate, low or very low) on the basis of study design, consistency across independent cohorts, directness of the evidence to human disease, and precision of the estimate. These ratings, together with the study design that would be required to resolve each remaining uncertainty, are presented in Table&#xa0;5. This grading represents a structured judgement by the authors and is not a formal GRADE assessment. RESULTS: Pathogenic actions of APOL1 risk alleles depend on toxic gain-of-function activities that result from the disruption of ion channels. Mitochondrial dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammasome activation play roles as secondary downstream modulators of podocyte damage. The existence of incomplete penetrance and lack of symptoms in people with high-risk alleles highlights the need for secondary triggers, including environmental, infectious, and inflammatory factors, for disease onset and progression. High-risk APOL1 genotypes increase the likelihood of rapidly progressing kidney diseases like FSGS, which amplify susceptibility in HIVAN when accompanied by secondary causes like HIV infection. Management is mainly through renin-angiotensin antagonists, but recent treatments include antisense oligonucleotides, immunomodulators, and small molecule inhibitors like inaxaplin. Although promising, inaxaplin (VX-147) showed a ~47% reduction in urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) in Phase 2a trial; however, these findings are based on a relatively small sample size, an open-label study design, and short-term follow-up, and therefore require confirmation in ongoing Phase 3 studies. As this is a narrative review rather than a primary study, no new patient-level data are reported. Across the studies synthesised, high-risk APOL1 genotypes were consistently associated with podocyte injury and with a faster decline in kidney function than low-risk genotypes; however, the magnitude of this association varied substantially with how cohorts were ascertained. The association is robust and reproducible for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, HIV-associated nephropathy, and hypertension-attributed kidney failure, and remains inconsistent for diabetic kidney disease. Therapeutic development has accelerated, but the supporting clinical evidence remains early phase. Inaxaplin (VX-147) reduced the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio by approximately 47.6% at week 13 in a 16-participant, single-group, open-label Phase 2a study, and is now being evaluated in the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 AMPLITUDE trial (NCT05312879), whose pre-specified week 48 interim analysis is anticipated in early 2027. MZE829, an orally administered APOL1 inhibitor, produced a mean 35.6% reduction in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio at 12&#xa0;weeks in the Phase 2 HORIZON study; because HORIZON was a small, open-label, single-arm basket study (15 participants enrolled, 12 evaluable) whose primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, this reduction is neither placebo adjusted nor the result of a formal test of efficacy. To date, no APOL1-targeted agent has demonstrated benefit on a hard kidney endpoint. CONCLUSION: APOL1 is the clearest current example of a genetically defined, mechanism-targetable kidney disease, but its evidence base is uneven. The genetic association is firmly established; whereas much of the mechanistic literature derives from overexpression systems, several downstream pathways remain contested, and every APOL1-targeted therapy is so far supported only by short-term, surrogate-endpoint data. The principal unresolved issues are the determinants of incomplete penetrance, the absence of a validated progression biomarker and of any model reproducing the common slowly progressive phenotype, and the long-term efficacy and safety of APOL1-directed therapy. Genotype-guided risk stratification is therefore best regarded as clinically reasonable but not yet proven, and routine population-level screening is not currently supported.

AMPLITUDE trial↗