SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Gender minority”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

94 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

The Impact of Baseline Negative Emotions on Postoperative Quality of Life in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a three-dimensional spinal deformity that develops during puberty without a clear etiology. Beyond physical manifestations, AIS severely impacts adolescents' psychological and social well-being, leading to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. While advancements in surgical techniques have enhanced objective outcomes, existing studies on AIS have primarily focused on objective indices, with limited attention to the long-term impact of preoperative negative emotions on patient-reported subjective quality of life. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 112 eligible AIS patients who underwent posterior spinal correction surgery between April and August 2023 were enrolled. Inclusion criteria included confirmed AIS, completion of 2-year follow-up, and informed consent; exclusion criteria included missing imaging/questionnaire data, comorbid psychiatric/neurological diseases, or prior spinal surgery. Patients were grouped using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) administered on admission. Quality of life was assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively using the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22, evaluating self-image, mental health, pain, function, treatment satisfaction) and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36, assessing 8 physical and mental health dimensions). Statistical analysis was performed via SPSS, using independent t-tests, paired t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-square test. p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics (age, gender, BMI, surgical parameters, scoliosis type, preoperative/postoperative Cobb angles) between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Preoperatively, SRS-22 and SF-36 scores showed no inter-group differences (all p > 0.05). Postoperatively, the Negative Emotion Group had significantly lower scores in SRS-22 mental health (3.9 ± 0.3 vs. 4.5 ± 0.2) and treatment satisfaction (4.0 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.7), as well as SF-36 general health (68.6 ± 6.4 vs. 79.7 ± 13.3), role-emotional (61.3 ± 9.3 vs. 70.8 ± 9.7), and mental health (61.8 ± 14.3 vs. 68.9 ± 10.7) (all p < 0.05); no inter-group differences were observed in physical function-related dimensions. Both groups showed significant improvements in physical function-related dimensions postoperatively. The Non-Negative Emotion Group also exhibited significant improvements in SRS-22 self-image/pain and SF-36 bodily pain (all p < 0.05), while the Negative Emotion Group showed no significant improvements in these dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative anxiety and depression do not affect the recovery of physical function in AIS patients after spinal correction surgery but significantly impede improvements in subjective quality of life dimensions, including mental health and treatment satisfaction. These findings highlight the need to integrate psychological assessment and targeted interventions into the perioperative management of AIS. Such a patient-centered approach will help optimize both physical and psychological outcomes, ultimately achieving comprehensive rehabilitation for AIS adolescents.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Weight and metabolic changes in patients with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate 6-month formulation versus paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation: a post-hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect that paliperidone palmitate 6-month long-acting injectable formulation (PP6M) had on metabolic parameters including body weight (BW), and blood lipid profiles, a post-hoc analysis was conducted to assess changes in BW from baseline to the end of study based on age, body mass index (BMI), and changes in blood lipid profiles during a 12-month, phase 3, double-blind (DB) clinical study. Long term effects of PP6M on BW and BMI were further explored during a 24-month extension study in which participants were treated exclusively with PP6M. METHOD: In the 12-month DB phase, participants were randomized to receive PP6M or paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injectable formulation (PP3M). The mean change in BW and abnormal weight percent change from baseline were calculated at endpoint by age, gender, and BMI. Additionally, treatment-emergent shifts from baseline for the four key lipid parameters (fasting low density lipoprotein [LDL], fasting triglycerides [TG], fasting total cholesterol [TC], and fasting high density lipoprotein [HDL]) during DB were assessed. Following this study, participants were given the opportunity to transition to a 24-month extension study and be treated with PP6M. The mean change and percent change in BW, and the mean change in BMI from DB baseline to the end of the extension study (36 months total) were calculated. RESULTS: Participants who were treated with PP6M showed numerically less weight gain, BMI, waist circumference, and more weight decrease compared to PP3M group during 12-month DB phase, though the proportion of participants reporting an abnormal change (≥7% change) in BW did not significantly differ between PP3M and PP6M. The weight differences were more pronounced in the younger age group (18-25 years) and those who were overweight (BMI: 25 to <30 kg/m2. Numerical differences in favor of PP6M were found in fasting blood lipids (HDL, LDL, TG, and TC). The changes in BW and BMI over time remained consistent throughout the 24-month extension, favoring PP6M in each instance. CONCLUSIONS: This post-hoc analysis demonstrated that PP6M was comparable to PP3M in terms of metabolic parameters; however, it may have a beneficial effect on weight gain, especially in young patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Post-Hoc Analysis of Studies NCT03345342 and NCT04072575 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Significant outcomes The findings from this study have highlighted that participants who were treated with the 6-month long-acting injectable formulation of paliperidone exhibited less weight gain during treatment overall, and significantly less weight gain in adolescents and young adults. Importantly, this trend continued over the course of long-term treatment, regardless of age. Participants treated with the 6-month formulation also had fewer shifts in blood lipids outside of the normal range and had more favorable changes in body mass index and waist circumference. These results suggest that when considering metabolic dysregulation as a factor in choosing a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, the 6-month formulation is a viable alternative to the 3-month formulation, particularly in younger patients with schizophrenia. Limitations Because this is a post hoc analysis and the study was not powered to test weight and metabolic changes, most endpoints were summarized descriptively and the statistical test was limited to the main endpoint (abnormal percent weight gain and loss).

Adult↗

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

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗