Vaccination is one of the great achievements of the 20th century, yet persistent public-health problems include inadequate, delayed, and unstable vaccination uptake. Psychology offers three general propositions for understanding and intervening to increase uptake where vaccines are available and affordable. The first proposition is that thoughts and feelings can motivate getting vaccinated. Hundreds of studies have shown that risk beliefs and anticipated regret about infectious disease correlate reliably with getting vaccinated; low confidence in vaccine effectiveness and concern about safety correlate reliably with not getting vaccinated. We were surprised to find that few randomized trials have successfully changed what people think and feel about vaccines, and those few that succeeded were minimally effective in increasing uptake. The second proposition is that social processes can motivate getting vaccinated. Substantial research has shown that social norms are associated with vaccination, but few int...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100618760521

Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action:

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking in pregnancy remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, stillbirth, low birthweight and preterm birth and has serious long-term implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries, but is strongly associated with poverty and increasing in low- to middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: In this fifth update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 March 2013), checked reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors to locate additional unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials, randomised cross-over trials, and quasi-randomised controlled trials (with allocation by maternal birth date or hospital record number) of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data. Direct comparisons were conducted in RevMan, and subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were conducted in SPSS. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six trials were included in this updated review, with 77 trials (involving over 29,000 women) providing data on smoking abstinence in late pregnancy.In separate comparisons, counselling interventions demonstrated a significant effect compared with usual care (27 studies; average risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.75), and a borderline effect compared with less intensive interventions (16 studies; average RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82). However, a significant effect was only seen in subsets where counselling was provided in conjunction with other strategies. It was unclear whether any type of counselling strategy is more effective than others (one study; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). In studies comparing counselling and usual care (the largest comparison), it was unclear whether interventions prevented smoking relapse among women who had stopped smoking spontaneously in early pregnancy (eight studies; average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21). However, a clear effect was seen in smoking abstinence at zero to five months postpartum (10 studies; average RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.95), a borderline effect at six to 11 months (six studies; average RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77), and a significant effect at 12 to 17 months (two studies, average RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.96), but not in the longer term. In other comparisons, the effect was not significantly different from the null effect for most secondary outcomes, but sample sizes were small.Incentive-based interventions had the largest effect size compared with a less intensive intervention (one study; RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.84 to 7.23) and an alternative intervention (one study; RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.48 to 11.11).Feedback interventions demonstrated a significant effect only when compared with usual care and provided in conjunction with other strategies, such as counselling (two studies; average RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 10.21), but the effect was unclear when compared with a less intensive intervention (two studies; average RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.12).The effect of health education was unclear when compared with usual care (three studies; average RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.59) or less intensive interventions (two studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.31).Social support interventions appeared effective when provided by peers (five studies; average RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19), but the effect was unclear in a single trial of support provided by partners.The effects were mixed where the smoking interventions were provided as part of broader interventions to improve maternal health, rather than targeted smoking cessation interventions.Subgroup analyses on primary outcome for all studies showed the intensity of interventions and comparisons has increased over time, with higher intensity interventions more likely to have higher intensity comparisons. While there was no significant difference, trials where the comparison group received usual care had the largest pooled effect size (37 studies; average RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.44), with lower effect sizes when the comparison group received less intensive interventions (30 studies; average RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.31), or alternative interventions (two studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.53). More recent studies included in this update had a lower effect size (20 studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59), I(2)= 3%, compared to those in the previous version of the review (50 studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.73). There were similar effect sizes in trials with biochemically validated smoking abstinence (49 studies; average RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67) and those with self-reported abstinence (20 studies; average RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.87). There was no significant difference between trials implemented by researchers (efficacy studies), and those implemented by routine pregnancy staff (effectiveness studies), however the effect was unclear in three dissemination trials of counselling interventions where the focus on the intervention was at an organisational level (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.50). The pooled effects were similar in interventions provided for women with predominantly low socio-economic status (44 studies; average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.66), compared to other women (26 studies; average RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79); though the effect was unclear in interventions among women from ethnic minority groups (five studies; average RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.40) and aboriginal women (two studies; average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.67). Importantly, pooled results demonstrated that women who received psychosocial interventions had an 18% reduction in preterm births (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96), and infants born with low birthweight (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94). There did not appear to be any adverse effects from the psychosocial interventions, and three studies measured an improvement in women's psychological wellbeing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial interventions to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy can increase the proportion of women who stop smoking in late pregnancy, and reduce low birthweight and preterm births.

/pdf/psychosocial-interventions-for-supporting-women-to-stop-i9wndny4ns.pdf

Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy

Background
A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all‐cause mortality.

/pdf/workplace-interventions-for-reducing-sitting-at-work-z3xxoyd3e5.pdf

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Prenatal substance use is a critical public health concern that is linked with several harmful maternal and fetal consequences. The most frequently used substance in pregnancy is tobacco, followed by alcohol, cannabis and other illicit substances. Unfortunately, polysubstance use in pregnancy is common, as well as psychiatric comorbidity, environmental stressors, and limited and disrupted parental care, all of which can compound deleterious maternal and fetal outcomes. There are few existing treatments for prenatal substance use and these mainly comprise behavioral and psychosocial interventions. Contingency management has been shown to be the most efficacious of these. The purpose of this review is to examine the recent literature on the prenatal use of tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, stimulants, and opioids, including the effects of these on maternal and fetal health and the current therapeutic options.

Substance use during pregnancy

By A. E. Maxwell London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Pp. 163. Price 16s. The author of this book is senior lecturer in statistics at the Institute of Psychiatry of the University of London. To complement an earlier volume on Experimental Design in Psychology and the Medical Sciences, he has written this account of the application of the chi-square test to various statistical investigations in psychology, psychiatry and social medicine.

Analysing Qualitative Data

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/247872/1/Mantzari%20et%20al%202015%20Preventive%20Medicine.pdf

Personal financial incentives for changing habitual health-related behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are one of the largest added sugar sources to diets in the UK and USA, particularly among young people. Warning labels, including calorie information labels, could reduce SSB consumption but uncertainty surrounds the labels that are most effective. This study assessed the impact of labels containing (a) each of two image-based warnings and (b) calorie information, singly and together, on SSB selection by parents of 11–16-year-olds living in the UK. Using a 3 (disease image, sugar content image, no image) × 2 (calorie information, no calorie information) between-subjects experimental design, 2002 participants were randomised to see beverages with one of six labels and selected one for their child to consume. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an SSB. Data were collected in December 2017. Logistic regressions showed SSB selection was lower when labels contained an image-based warning (35%), compared to not having any label (49%) or just calorie information (43.5%). The disease image lowered selection more than the sugar image (32% vs 40.5%). Providing calorie information with the disease image had no additional impact on selection (33%) but enhanced the impact of the sugar image (36%). Image-based warning labels discourage SSB selection by parents for their children. Images depicting health consequences of excess sugar consumption have larger effects than those depicting sugar content. Calorie information does not add to the effect of the former but does to that of the latter. Field studies are needed to assess the impact of SSB warning labels in real-life settings.

Impact of warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverages on parental selection: An online experimental study.

Wine glass size can influence both perceptions of portion size and the amount poured, but its impact upon purchasing and consumption is unknown. This study aimed to examine the impact of wine glass size on wine sales for on-site consumption, keeping portion size constant. In one establishment (with separate bar and restaurant areas) in Cambridge, England, wine glass size (Standard; Larger; Smaller) was changed over eight fortnightly periods. The bar and restaurant differ in wine sales by the glass vs. by the bottle (93 % vs. 63 % by the glass respectively). Daily wine volume purchased was 9.4 % (95 % CI: 1.9, 17.5) higher when sold in larger compared to standard-sized glasses. This effect seemed principally driven by sales in the bar area (bar: 14.4 % [3.3, 26.7]; restaurant: 8.2 % [−2.5, 20.1]). Findings were inconclusive as to whether sales were different with smaller vs. standard-sized glasses. The size of glasses in which wine is sold, keeping the portion size constant, can affect consumption, with larger glasses increasing consumption. The hypothesised mechanisms for these differential effects need to be tested in a replication study. If replicated, policy implications could include considering glass size amongst alcohol licensing requirements. ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN12018175
 . Registered 12th May 2015.

/pdf/does-wine-glass-size-influence-sales-for-on-site-consumption-3a0yj08j30.pdf

Does wine glass size influence sales for on-site consumption? A multiple treatment reversal design

Unfounded concerns about risk compensation threaten public health when they delay the introduction of protective measures such as wearing of face coverings, argue Theresa Marteau and colleagues

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m2913.full.pdf

Is risk compensation threatening public health in the covid-19 pandemic?

Wine glass size may influence perceived volume and subsequently purchasing and consumption. Using a larger glass to serve the same portions of wine was found to increase wine sales by 9.4% (95% CI 1.9, 17.5) in a recent study conducted in one bar. The current study aimed to replicate this previous work in two other bars using a wider range of glass sizes. To match the previous study, a repeated multiple treatment reversal design, during which wine was served in glasses of the same design but different sizes, was used. The study was conducted in two bars in Cambridge, England, using glass sizes of 300, 370, 510 ml (Bar 1) and 300 and 510 ml (Bar 2). Customers purchased their choice of a 750 ml bottle, or standard UK measures of 125, 175 or 250 ml of wine, each of which was served with the same glass. Bar 1 Daily wine volume (ml) purchased was 10.5% (95% CI 1.0, 20.9) higher when sold in 510 ml compared to 370 ml glasses; but sales were not significantly different with 300 ml vs. 370 ml glasses (6.5%, 95% CI −5.2, 19.6). Bar 2 Findings were inconclusive as to whether daily wine purchased differed when using 510 ml versus 300 ml glasses (−1.1%, 95% CI −12.6, 11.9). These results provide a partial replication of previous work showing that introducing larger glasses (without manipulating portion size) increases purchasing. Understanding the mechanisms by which wine glass size influences consumption may elucidate when the effect can be expected and when not. Trial registration This study is a replication study, based on the procedure set out in the trial registration for the study that it attempts to replicate (ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN12018175)

/pdf/wine-glass-size-and-wine-sales-a-replication-study-in-two-vqaimj1nrs.pdf

Eleni Mantzari

Papers

Personal financial incentives for changing habitual health-related behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverages on parental selection: An online experimental study.

Does wine glass size influence sales for on-site consumption? A multiple treatment reversal design

Is risk compensation threatening public health in the covid-19 pandemic?

Wine glass size and wine sales: a replication study in two bars