To examine differences in noticing and use of nutrition information comparing jurisdictions with and without mandatory menu labelling policies and examine differences among sociodemographic groups.

Cross-sectional data from the International Food Policy Study (IFPS) online survey.

IFPS participants from Australia, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom and USA in 2019.

Adults aged 18–99; n 19 393.

Participants in jurisdictions with mandatory policies were significantly more likely to notice and use nutrition information, order something different, eat less of their order and change restaurants compared to jurisdictions without policies. For noticed nutrition information, the differences between policy groups were greatest comparing older to younger age groups and comparing high education (difference of 10·7 %, 95 % CI 8·9, 12·6) to low education (difference of 4·1 %, 95 % CI 1·8, 6·3). For used nutrition information, differences were greatest comparing high education (difference of 4·9 %, 95 % CI 3·5, 6·4) to low education (difference of 1·8 %, 95 % CI 0·2, 3·5). Mandatory labelling was associated with an increase in ordering something different among the majority ethnicity group and a decrease among the minority ethnicity group. For changed restaurant visited, differences were greater for medium and high education compared to low education, and differences were greater for higher compared to lower income adequacy.

Participants living in jurisdictions with mandatory nutrition information in restaurants were more likely to report noticing and using nutrition information, as well as greater efforts to modify their consumption. However, the magnitudes of these differences were relatively small.

Apolipoprotein E (APOE) E4 is the main genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Due to the consistent association, there is interest as to whether E4 influences the risk of other neurodegenerative diseases. Further, there is a constant search for other genetic biomarkers contributing to these phenotypes, such as microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) haplotypes. Here, participants from the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative were genotyped to investigate whether the APOE E4 allele or MAPT H1 haplotype are associated with five neurodegenerative diseases: (1) AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), (2) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, (3) frontotemporal dementia (FTD), (4) Parkinson’s disease, and (5) vascular cognitive impairment.

Genotypes were defined for their respective APOE allele and MAPT haplotype calls for each participant, and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the associations with the presentations of neurodegenerative diseases.

Our work confirmed the association of the E4 allele with a dose-dependent increased presentation of AD, and an association between the E4 allele alone and MCI; however, the other four diseases were not associated with E4. Further, the APOE E2 allele was associated with decreased presentation of both AD and MCI. No associations were identified between MAPT haplotype and the neurodegenerative disease cohorts; but following subtyping of the FTD cohort, the H1 haplotype was significantly associated with progressive supranuclear palsy.

This is the first study to concurrently analyze the association of APOE isoforms and MAPT haplotypes with five neurodegenerative diseases using consistent enrollment criteria and broad phenotypic analysis.

The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program sponsors the development of systematic reviews to inform clinical policy and practice. The EPC program sought to better understand how health systems identify and use this evidence.

Representatives from eleven EPCs, the EPC Scientific Resource Center, and AHRQ developed a semi-structured interview script to query a diverse group of nine Key Informants (KIs) involved in health system quality, safety and process improvement about how they identify and use evidence. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively summarized into key themes.

All KIs reported that their organizations have either centralized quality, safety, and process improvement functions within their system, or they have partnerships with other organizations to conduct this work. There was variation in how evidence was identified, with larger health systems having medical librarians and central bureaus to gather and disseminate information and smaller systems having local chief medical officers or individual clinicians do this work. KIs generally prefer guidelines, especially those with treatment algorithms, because they are actionable. They like systematic reviews because they efficiently condense study results and reconcile conflicting data. They prefer information from systematic reviews to be presented as short digestible summaries with the full report available on demand. KIs preferred systematic reviews from reputable entities and those without commercial bias. Some of the challenges KIs reported include how to resolve conflicting evidence, the generalizability of evidence to local needs, determining whether the evidence is up-to-date, and the length of time required to generate reviews. The topics of greatest interest included predictive analytics, high-value care, advance care planning, and care coordination. To increase awareness of AHRQ EPC reviews, KIs suggest alerting people at multiple levels in a health-system when new evidence reports are available and making reports easier to find in common search engines.

Systematic reviews are valued by health system leaders. To be most useful they should be easy to locate and available in different formats targeted to the needs of different audiences.