This study examined changes food and drink purchasing during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in England, and if changes varied by population subgroups.

We investigated changes in take-home food and drink purchasing and frequency of out-of-home (OOH) purchasing using an interrupted time series analysis design. The start of pandemic restrictions (the intervention) was defined as 16 March 2020, when first announced in the UK.

London and the North of England.

1245 households reporting take-home and 226 individuals reporting OOH purchases between January 2019 and mid-June 2020 from the GB Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods Panel.

The marginal mean estimate of total take-home energy purchased was 17·4 % (95 % CI 14·9, 19·9) higher during the pandemic restriction period compared with the counterfactual. Increases of 35·2 % (95 % CI 23·4, 47·0) in take-home volume of alcoholic beverages and 1·2 % (95 % CI 0·1, 2·4) in foods and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar were observed. Reductions in purchased energy from fruit and vegetables (–7·3 %, 95 % CI –10·9, –3·6), ultra-processed foods (–4·0 %, 95 % CI –5·2, –2·8) and in OOH purchasing frequency (–44·0 %, 95 % CI –58·3, –29·6) were observed. Changes in chocolate and confectionery, soft drink and savoury snack purchases levelled off over time. Changes in all studied outcomes varied by sociodemographic characteristics and usual purchasing.

Pandemic restrictions were associated with positive and negative changes in food and drink purchasing, which differed by individual characteristics. Future research should ascertain if changes persist and translate into changes in health.

Rapid antigen detection tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 with emergency use authorization generally include a condition of authorization to evaluate the test’s performance in asymptomatic individuals when used serially. We aim to describe a novel study design that was used to generate regulatory-quality data to evaluate the serial use of Ag-RDT in detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus among asymptomatic individuals.

This prospective cohort study used a siteless, digital approach to assess longitudinal performance of Ag-RDT. Individuals over 2 years old from across the USA with no reported COVID-19 symptoms in the 14 days prior to study enrollment were eligible to enroll in this study. Participants throughout the mainland USA were enrolled through a digital platform between October 18, 2021 and February 15, 2022. Participants were asked to test using Ag-RDT and molecular comparators every 48 hours for 15 days. Enrollment demographics, geographic distribution, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates are reported.

A total of 7361 participants enrolled in the study, and 492 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 154 who were asymptomatic and tested negative to start the study. This exceeded the initial enrollment goals of 60 positive participants. We enrolled participants from 44 US states, and geographic distribution of participants shifted in accordance with the changing COVID-19 prevalence nationwide.

The digital site-less approach employed in the “Test Us At Home” study enabled rapid, efficient, and rigorous evaluation of rapid diagnostics for COVID-19 and can be adapted across research disciplines to optimize study enrollment and accessibility.

For decades, quantitative psychologists have recommended that authors report effect sizes to convey the magnitude and potential clinical relevance of statistical associations. However, fewer than one-third of neuropsychology articles published in the early 2000s reported effect sizes. This study re-examines the frequency and extent of effect size reporting in neuropsychology journal articles by manuscript section and over time.

A sample of 326 empirical articles were drawn from 36 randomly selected issues of six neuropsychology journals at 5-year intervals between 1995 and 2020. Four raters used a novel, reliable coding system to quantify the extent to which effect sizes were included in the major sections of all 326 articles.

Findings showed medium-to-large increases in effect size reporting in the Methods and Results sections of neuropsychology journal articles that plateaued in recent years; however, there were only very small and nonsignificant changes in effect size reporting in the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion sections.

Authors in neuropsychology journals have markedly improved their effect size reporting in the core Methods and Results sections, but are still unlikely to consider these valuable metrics when motivating their study hypotheses and interpreting the conceptual and clinical implications of their findings. Recommendations are provided to encourage more widespread integration of effect sizes in neuropsychological research.

People living with HIV (PLWH) often experience deficits in the strategic/executive aspects of prospective memory (PM) that can interfere with instrumental activities of daily living. This study used a conceptual replication design to determine whether cognitive intraindividual variability, as measured by dispersion (IIV-dispersion), contributes to PM performance and symptoms among PLWH.

Study 1 included 367 PLWH who completed a comprehensive clinical neuropsychological test battery, the Memory for Intentions Test (MIsT), and the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ). Study 2 included 79 older PLWH who completed the Cogstate cognitive battery, the Cambridge Prospective Memory Test (CAMPROMPT), an experimental measure of time-based PM, and the PRMQ. In both studies, a mean-adjusted coefficient of variation was derived to measure IIV-dispersion using normative T-scores from the cognitive battery.

Higher IIV-dispersion was significantly associated with lower time-based PM performance at small-to-medium effect sizes in both studies (mean r s  = −0.30). The relationship between IIV-dispersion and event-based PM performance was comparably small in magnitude in both studies (r s  = −0.19, −0.20), but it was only statistically significant in Study 1. IIV-dispersion showed very small, nonsignificant relationships with self-reported PM symptoms in both samples (r s < 0.10).

Extending prior work in healthy adults, these findings suggest that variability in performance across a cognitive battery contributes to laboratory-based PM accuracy, but not perceived PM symptoms, among PLWH. Future studies might examine whether daily fluctuations in cognition or other aspects of IIV (e.g., inconsistency) play a role in PM failures in everyday life.