To map out evidence on instruments for evaluating organisational food environments of workplaces and the components and dimensions considered in the identified instruments.

A scoping review that includes studies published as of January 2005, the year of publication of the model developed by Glanz et al. (2005). The databases consulted were PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus and Google Scholar until November 2024, without language restrictions. Studies were included if they evaluated the food environment of workplaces such as companies/factories, universities/post-secondary institutions/technical colleges and hospitals/health care units. The conceptual model of Castro and Canella (2022), considering its components and dimensions, was used to synthesise the data.

After a full reading, fifty-four articles were selected. Most were conducted in the United States and Brazil, although there were studies from sixteen countries. A total of thirty-six instruments were identified: nineteen were used in universities, eight in hospitals, and eleven in companies. No instrument included all components and dimensions of the conceptual model; however, three instruments included most of them. The most evaluated component was the internal level of eating spaces, and the most evaluated dimensions were the availability and quality of foods/beverages in eating spaces. Of the thirty-six instruments, twenty-nine reported some measure of validity or reproducibility. The limitation most reported by the studies was the non-generaliation of results because samples are limited.

Evaluations of the organisational food environment of workplaces can be used for monitoring, planning interventions and formulating public policies for such places, thereby enhancing workers’ health.

A commonly used confrontation naming task used in the United States is The Boston Naming Test (BNT). Performance differences has been found in Caucasian and ethnic minorities on the BNT. The Cordoba Naming Test (CNT) is a 30-item confrontation naming task developed in Argentina. Past research has shown acculturation levels can influence cognitive performance. Furthermore, one study evaluated geriatric gender differences on CNT performance in Spanish. Researchers reported that older male participants outperformed female participants on the CNT. To our knowledge, researchers have not evaluated ethnic differences on the CNT using a geriatric sample. The purpose of the present study was to examined CNT performance and acculturation in a Latinx and Caucasian geriatric sample. It was predicted the Caucasian group would outperform the Latinx group on the CNT. Moreover, the Caucasian group would report higher acculturation levels on the Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS) compared to the Latinx group.

The sample consisted of 9 Latinx and 11 Caucasian participants with a mean age of 66.80 (SD =6.10), with an average of 14.30 (SD = 2.00) years of education. All participants were neurologically and psychologically healthy and completed the CNT and the AMAS in English. Acculturation was measured via the AMAS English subscales (i.e., English Language, United States. Identity, United States, Competency). A series of ANCOVAs, controlling for years of education completed and gender, was used to evaluate CNT performance and acculturation.

The ethnic groups were not well demographically matched (i.e., years of education and gender).We found that the Caucasian group outperformed the Latinx group on CNT performance p = .012, ηp 2 = .34. Furthermore, the Caucasian group reported higher acculturation levels (i.e., English Language, United States, Identity, United States, Competency) compared to the Latinx group p’s < .05, ηps2 = .42-.64.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate CNT performance between ethnic groups with a geriatric sample. As expected the Caucasian group outperformed the Latinx group on the CNT. Also, as expected the Caucasian group reported higher English acculturation levels compared to the Latinx group. Our findings are consistent with past studies showing ethnic differences on confrontational naming performance (i.e., The Boston Naming Test), favoring Caucasians. A possible explanation for group differences could have been linguistic factors (e.g., speaking multiple languages) in our Latinx group. Therefore, since our Latinx group reported lower levels of English Language, United States identity, and United States competency the Latinx group assimilation towards United States culture might of influence their CNT performance. Future studies with different ethnic groups (e.g., African-Americans) and a larger sample size should examine if ethnic differences continue to cross-validate in a geriatric sample.

A 30-item confrontation naming test was developed in Argentina for Spanish speakers, The Cordoba Naming Test (CNT). The Boston Naming Test is an established confrontation naming task in the United States. Researchers have used the Boston Naming Test to identify individuals with different clinical pathologies (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease). The current literature on how Spanish speakers across various countries perform on confrontational naming tasks is limited. To our knowledge, one study investigated CNT performance across three Spanish-speaking countries (i.e., Argentina, Mexico, and Guatemala). Investigators found that the Guatemalan group underperformed on the CNT compared to the Argentine and Mexican groups. The purpose of this study was to extend the current literature and investigate CNT performance across five Spanish-speaking countries (i.e., Argentina, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, United States). We predicted that the Argentine group would outperform the other Spanish-speaking countries.

The present study sample consisted of 502 neurologically and psychologically healthy participants with a mean age of 29.06 (SD = 13.41) with 14.75 years of education completed (SD = 3.01). Participants were divided into five different groups based on their country of birth and current country residency (i.e., United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Argentina, & Colombia). All participants consented to voluntary participation and completed the CNT and a comprehensive background questionnaire in Spanish. The CNT consisted of 30 black and white line drawings, ranging from easy to hard in difficulty. An ANCOVA, controlling for gender, education, and age, was used to evaluate CNT performance between the five Spanish-speaking country groups. Meanwhile, a Bonferroni post-hoc test was utilized to evaluate the significant differences between Spanish-speaking groups. We used a threshold of p < .05 for statistical significance.

Results revealed significant group differences between the five Spanish speaking groups on the CNT, p = .000, np2 = .48. Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed that the United States group significantly underperformed on the CNT compared to all the Spanish-speaking groups. Next, we found the Guatemalan group underperformed on the CNT compared to the Argentinian, Mexican, and Colombian groups. Additionally, we found the Argentinian group outperformed the Mexican, Guatemalan, and United States groups on the CNT. No significant differences were found between the Argentinian group and Colombian group or the Mexican group and Colombian group on the CNT.

As predicted, the Argentinian group outperformed all the Spanish-speaking groups on the CNT except the Colombian group. Additionally, we found that the United States group underperformed on the CNT compared to all the Spanish-speaking groups. A possible explanation is that Spanish is not the official language in the United States compared to the rest of the Spanish-speaking groups. Meanwhile, a possible reason why the Argentinian and Colombian groups demonstrated better CNT performances might have been that it was less culturally sensitive than the United States, Mexican, and Guatemalan groups. Further analysis is needed with bigger sample sizes across other Spanish-speaking countries (e.g., Costa Rica, Chile) to evaluate what variables, if any, are influencing CNT performance.

To determine the incidence of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel (HCP) and to assess occupational risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Prospective cohort of healthcare personnel (HCP) followed for 6 months from May through December 2020.

Large academic healthcare system including 4 hospitals and affiliated clinics in Atlanta, Georgia.

HCP, including those with and without direct patient-care activities, working during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infections were determined through serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG at enrollment, at 3 months, and at 6 months. HCP completed monthly surveys regarding occupational activities. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify occupational factors that increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Of the 304 evaluable HCP that were seronegative at enrollment, 26 (9%) seroconverted for SARS-CoV-2 IgG by 6 months. Overall, 219 participants (73%) self-identified as White race, 119 (40%) were nurses, and 121 (40%) worked on inpatient medical-surgical floors. In a multivariable analysis, HCP who identified as Black race were more likely to seroconvert than HCP who identified as White (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–14.2). Increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection was not identified for any occupational activity, including spending >50% of a typical shift at a patient’s bedside, working in a COVID-19 unit, or performing or being present for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs).

In our study cohort of HCP working in an academic healthcare system, <10% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection over 6 months. No specific occupational activities were identified as increasing risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.