To describe the development and validation of the Nova FFQ (NovaFFQ) for Brazilian adults.

The NovaFFQ is a self-administered, semi-quantitative questionnaire. The food list includes the most consumed foods and drinks based on 2017–2018 National Food Intake Survey data. We identified and differentiated foods that could be classified into multiple Nova groups. We assessed reproducibility and criterion validity using the percent energy contribution of each Nova group. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing NovaFFQ estimates on two occasions. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the first NovaFFQ estimate against the mean of two Nova24h recalls. We estimated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for both analyses and assessed the agreement of classification into quintiles using the prevalence-and-bias-adjusted kappa coefficients for criterion validity analysis.

Nationwide Brazilian study, the NutriNet-Brasil cohort.

There were 243 participants in the reproducibility analysis and 376 in the criterion validity analysis.

Strong reproducibility was observed, with an ICC of 0·91 for all the Nova groups. Criterion validity showed a moderate ICC, ranging from 0·61 for processed and ultra-processed foods (UPF) to 0·65 for unprocessed and minimally processed foods. Substantial agreement in ranking individuals across quintiles was found, as indicated by the prevalence-and-bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK = 0·74, 0·72, 0·70 and 0·73 for unprocessed and minimally processed foods, culinary ingredients and processed and ultra-processed foods, respectively).

The NovaFFQ is a valid instrument for assessing food consumption by processing level, especially for discriminating individuals according to the magnitude of consumption in all Nova groups.

Caring for a relative with dementia is a chronic stress situation related to negative consequences such as elevated depressive and anxiety symptoms. A possible mediator variable explored to explain pathways from chronic stress to emotional distress is emotional ambivalence towards the care-recipient (the simultaneous experience of positive and negative feelings towards the care-recipient). Emotional ambivalence, measured with questionnaires, presents significant associations with depression and anxiety in family carers of people with dementia. However, the self-report of emotional ambivalence is susceptible to being influenced by social desirability. The aim of this study is to present preliminary results that analyze implicit ambivalence and its association with emotional distress in family carers of people with dementia.

54 caregivers participated in the study (mean age = 61.2, SD = 12.92, 81.5% women). To explore implicit emotional ambivalence, we adapted a sequential priming paradigm developed to measure implicit ambivalence about significant others (Zayas & Shoda, 2015). Two priming stimuli were used: a) neutral (e.g., RRR) and b) valenced prime (i.e., the name of the care-recipient). The targets were positive and negative words that participants have to categorize as positive or negative.

A facilitation-inhibition indexes for positive and negative targets were calculated by subtracting the mean reaction time (RT) for valenced prime from the mean RT for neutral primes. Positive values show a facilitation effect of the valenced prime (i.e., the name of the care-recipient), and negative values inhibition. Participants were classified depending on their results of this indexes: a) positive (facilitation of positive information, inhibition of negative information), b) negative (facilitation of negative information, inhibition of positive information), c) flat (inhibition of positive and negative information), and d) ambivalence (facilitation of positive and negative information). ANOVAS were performed to explore differences between groups in emotional distress. The preliminary results showed that the ambivalence group might present more depressive symptoms compared with the positive group.

This is the first study that analyzed implicit ambivalence in family carers of people with dementia. The preliminary results show the relevance of exploring implicit processes to explain emotional distress in this population.

This study evaluated the independent and combined environmental impacts of the consumption of beef and ultra-processed foods in Brazil.

Cross-sectional study.

Brazil.

We used food purchases data from a national household budget survey conducted between July 2017 and July 2018, representing all Brazilian households. Food purchases were converted into energy, carbon footprints and water footprints. Multiple linear regression models were used to assess the association between quintiles of beef and ultra-processed foods in total energy purchases and the environmental footprints, controlling for sociodemographic variables.

Both beef and ultra-processed foods had a significant linear association with carbon and water footprints (P < 0·01) in crude and adjusted models. In the crude upper quintile of beef purchases, carbon and water footprints were 47·7 % and 30·8 % higher, respectively, compared to the lower quintile. The upper quintile of ultra-processed food purchases showed carbon and water footprints 14·4 % and 22·8 % higher, respectively, than the lower quintile. The greatest reduction in environmental footprints would occur when both beef and ultra-processed food purchases are decreased, resulting in a 21·1 % reduction in carbon footprint and a 20·0 % reduction in water footprint.

Although the environmental footprints associated with beef consumption are higher, dietary patterns with lower consumption of beef and ultra-processed foods combined showed the greatest reduction in carbon and water footprints in Brazil. The high consumption of beef and ultra-processed foods is harmful to human health, as well as to the environment; thus, their reduction is beneficial to both.

To analyse the purchase of food for school feeding, according to the extent and purpose of industrial processing and variety, exploring the feasibility of achieving the requirements and recommendations of the Brazilian School Feeding Programme, and the variety of unprocessed or minimally processed foods according to the purchase of ultra-processed foods.

Secondary data from 2016 from the Accountability Management System of the National Fund for Educational Development, concerning the food items purchased, were used to explore the feasibility of the requirements and recommendations. The foods were grouped according to the NOVA classification system. Variety was assessed by counting different types of unprocessed or minimally processed foods.

Brazil.

3698 Brazilian municipalities.

Energy share from unprocessed or minimally processed foods was 44·1 % while that of ultra-processed foods was 29·9 %. The average of unprocessed or minimally processed food types purchased annually was 33·8 items. Of the municipalities, 35·8 % were within the limit established for the expenditure of funds for the purchase of processed and ultra-processed foods, while 8·7 % followed the recommendation for variety. The proportion of ultra-processed foods did not influence the variety of food items purchased.

The results showed the feasibility of achieving the requirements and recommendations and underscored the importance of continued efforts to promote the inclusion of unprocessed or minimally processed foods in the school feeding programme while addressing the challenges associated with expenditure limits of processed and ultra-processed foods and enhancing variety, which is strategic to promote adequate and healthy meals.

To assess the prospective association of two diet quality scores based on the Nova food classification with BMI gain.

The NutriNet-Brasil cohort is an ongoing web-based prospective study with continuous recruitment of participants aged ≥ 18 years since January 2020. A short 24-h dietary recall screener including ‘yes/no’ questions about the consumption of whole plant foods (WPF) and ultra-processed foods (UPF) was completed by participants at baseline. The Nova-WPF and the Nova-UPF scores were computed by adding up positive responses regarding the consumption of thirty-three varieties of WPF and twenty-three varieties of UPF, respectively. Participants reported their height at baseline and their weight at both baseline and after approximately 15 months of follow-up. A 15-month BMI (kg/m2) increase of ≥5 % was coded as BMI gain.

Brazil.

9551 participants from the NutriNet-Brasil cohort.

Increasing quintiles of the Nova-UPF score were linearly associated with higher risk of BMI gain (relative risk Q5/Q1 = 1·34; 95 % CI 1·15, 1·56), whereas increasing quintiles of the Nova-WPF score were linearly associated with lower risk (relative risk Q5/Q1 = 0·80; 95 % CI 0·69, 0·94). We identified a moderate inverse correlation between the two scores (–0·33) and a partial mediating effect of the alternative score: 15 % for the total effect of the Nova-UPF score and 25 % for the total effect of the Nova-WPF score.

The Nova-UPF and Nova-WPF scores are independently associated with mid-term BMI gain further justifying their use in diet quality monitoring systems.

To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs).

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time.

Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants.

Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP).

We conducted a case–control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up.

Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05–1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07–1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17–0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30–0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01–0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID.

Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 − rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types.

In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant.

Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.

This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the Mindful Self-Care Scale (MSCS, 33-item) in a Brazilian hospice and palliative care context.

This was a cross-sectional study with a sample of 336 Brazilian hospice and palliative care providers. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer — Quality of Life Group Translation Procedure protocol was used for the translation and the cultural adaptation process. Psychometric properties supporting the use of the MSCS were examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and correlation analysis with other instruments to assess congruence to related constructs (resilience and self-compassion). The reliability of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the MSCS was assessed using Cronbach's α and composite reliability coefficients.

The six-factor (33-item) model showed a good fit to the data, with satisfactory reliability indices and adequate representation of the scale's internal structure. Further validity is evidenced in the significant, positive correlations found between the MSCS, and similar well-being constructs, namely the Self-Compassion and Resilience scales.

The findings reveal that the MSCS (33-item) is a valid, reliable, and culturally appropriate instrument to examine the practice of mindful self-care by hospice and palliative care providers in Brazil. More broadly, it represents a promising instrument for future research into self-care practices and well-being among Brazilian healthcare providers.