Results for “Tropical Climate” — Page 4

PubMed2026

Developing low-carbon metered-dose inhalers: effects of propellant HFA-152a on mucociliary clearance and bronchoconstriction in two Phase 1 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the impact of respiratory care on climate change, metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) are being reformulated with low-global warming potential (GWP) propellants. Next-generation propellant hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-152a has >90% lower GWP than HFA-134a. As part of the safety evaluation for HFA-152a, mucociliary clearance (MCC), bronchoconstriction and safety were compared with HFA-134a. METHODS: Two Phase 1, randomised, two-way crossover studies (NCT06506266/NCT06702462) were conducted. MCC study: healthy participants inhaled HFA-152a and HFA-134a in two 7-day sequences. MCC was quantified as area under radiolabelled particle retention time curve over 4 h (AUC0-4h) after nebulised 99mTc sulphur colloid, following each propellant. Bronchoconstriction study: patients with mild asthma inhaled single doses of HFA-152a and HFA-134a. Non-inferiority of HFA-152a versus HFA-134a was defined as percent change in FEV1 (litres), 15 min post dose (95% confidence intervals [CI]: lower limit >-10%, upper limit >0%). Both studies assessed safety. RESULTS: In 22 healthy participants, the impact on MCC did not differ between HFA-134a and HFA-152a (AUC0-4h geometric mean ratio [90% CI]: 1.00 [0.99, 1.01]). In 19 patients with mild asthma, neither HFA-152a nor HFA-134a induced bronchoconstriction (percent change in FEV1 at 15 min: -0.37% [HFA-152a] vs -0.60% [HFA-134a]); HFA-152a was non-inferior to HFA-134a (mean difference [95% CI]: 0.23% [-3.61, 4.07]). Adverse event (AE) rates were low and similar for both propellants in both studies; all AEs were mild, with no serious AEs or deaths. CONCLUSION: HFA-152a and HFA-134a had almost identical effects on MCC, neither induced bronchoconstriction, supporting MDI reformulation with the low-GWP propellant HFA-152a.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Experiences of stigma, bias, and communication challenges among pregnant healthcare workers: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare work environments are fraught with occupational hazards that can impact pregnant healthcare workers' health as well as patient care. Despite the feminization of healthcare globally, systematic discrimination against pregnant workers persists across diverse healthcare settings and cultural contexts. The intersection of stigma, bias, and communication challenges creates substantial barriers to career advancement and wellbeing. However, no systematic review has synthesized qualitative evidence on how these three constructs interact across healthcare professions and cultural contexts using an integrated theoretical framework. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesize qualitative evidence on experiences of stigma, bias, and communication challenges among pregnant healthcare workers across different healthcare settings and cultural contexts using an integrated theoretical framework. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative studies following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with thematic synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched from inception to January 2026. REVIEW METHODS: Included qualitative studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and synthesized through theory-guided thematic synthesis. Confidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. RESULTS: Fourteen studies encompassing 1223 participants across 17 countries revealed four major themes: (1) professional identity stigma and workplace discrimination through systematic labeling and stereotyping; (2) gender-based institutional bias rooted in masculine organizational logic; (3) multilevel communication failures creating fear-based climates; and (4) individual and collective resistance strategies developed despite constraints. Occupational hazards specific to pregnancy included exposure to infectious diseases, imaging, physical tasks, cleaning products, patient violence, and medication administration. Support from coworkers and supervisors was identified as the most critical facilitator for avoiding hazards and making necessary modifications, while the desire to be 'supernurses' and fear of consequences emerged as significant barriers. These patterns were consistent across healthcare professions, settings, and cultural contexts, with specialty culture and healthcare system type moderating discrimination intensity. Confidence in core findings was rated high using GRADE-CERQual. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant healthcare workers globally experience interconnected stigma, bias, and communication challenges that are systematically embedded within healthcare organizational structures. These challenges operate synergistically, requiring comprehensive multilevel interventions beyond policy compliance. Healthcare organizations must implement evidence-based strategies addressing stigma reduction, bias interruption, and communication transformation simultaneously to retain skilled workers and ensure quality patient care.

Female↗