Current cancer prevention recommendations advise limiting red meat intake to <500 g/week and avoiding consumption of processed meat, but do not differentiate the source of processed meat. We examined the associations of processed meat derived from red v. non-red meats with cancer risk in a prospective cohort of 26 218 adults who reported dietary intake using the Canadian Diet History Questionnaire. Incidence of cancer was obtained through data linkage with Alberta Cancer Registry with median follow-up of 13·3 (interquartile range (IQR) 5·1) years. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were adjusted for covariates and stratified by age and sex. The median consumption (g/week) of red meat, processed meat from red meat and processed meat from non-red meat was 267·9 (IQR 269·9), 53·6 (IQR 83·3) and 11·9 (IQR 31·8), respectively. High intakes (4th Quartile) of processed meat from red meat were associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 1·68 (95 % CI 1·09, 2·57) and colorectal cancers AHR: 1·90 (95 % CI 1·12, 3·22), respectively, in women. No statistically significant associations were observed for intakes of red meat or processed meat from non-red meat. Results suggest that the carcinogenic effect associated with processed meat intake may be limited to processed meat derived from red meats. The findings provide preliminary evidence towards refining cancer prevention recommendations for red and processed meat intake.

This report describes the evaluation of the psychometric and clinimetric properties of nine self-report measures completed by informal care partners of individuals with mild cognitive impairment or dementia in Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. One hundred thirty-six care partners completed measures on relationship satisfaction, burden, stress, mood, resilience, health, quality of life, and feelings related to care provision. Psychometric properties, such as internal consistency, convergent validity, floor and ceiling effects, completion rate and data missingness, as well as clinimetric properties, such as time to administer, ease of scoring, readability and availability of the scales, were examined. Additionally, the design of the measure development studies was assessed with the 2018 COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. Participants were mostly married women (>85%) with a mean age of 69.4 years. The methodological quality of the design of all measure development studies was “inadequate.” Five widely applied measures (Zarit Burden Interview, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Short Form 12 Health Survey, Relatives’ Stress Scale, and EuroQoL-5D) and two less researched instruments (Brief Resilience Scale and Relationship Satisfaction Scale) had high internal consistency and completion rates, moderate to strong convergent validity, low missingness and floor effects, and excellent clinical utility ratings. Two scales (Dyadic Relationship Scale and Family Caregiving Role) received poor psychometric ratings, and their usage among informal care partners is not recommended. In conclusion, well-validated and widely used measures received strong psychometric and clinimetric ratings. Future studies are required to determine the most reliable, valid and robust caregiver-reported measures.