Predictors of Adolescent Parent Communication and Safe Sexual Behaviour among In-School Adolescents

Adolescents in communicating about their sexual and reproductive health (SRH) issues are faced with the obstacles created by expected social norms and taboos related to sexuality and gender. This study aims to determine the relationship between adolescent-parent communication and its relationship with safe sex behaviour among adolescents. The study was a descriptive cross-sectional. Data was collected from 400 adolescents in Ife-East local government using a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire. We used a multistage sampling technique to select the required study subjects. We carried out simple frequencies and chi-square.  Fifty –five percent (55.3%) of the respondents were females, while 44.8% are males. The mean age (±SD) of the participants was 15.50 ±1.55years. Of the respondents, only 37% had good knowledge of sexual and reproductive health issues, while 63% had poor knowledge of sexual and reproductive health issues. The predictors of adolescent parent communication among respondents are private schools (OR=2.546, P = 0.005, CI=1.327-4.885), Female sex (OR=12.128, P<0.001, CI=11.590 – 25.534),   family size (OR=14.772, P= 0.003, CI=13.037 –20.015) and good knowledge of sexual and reproductive health issues (OR=19.521, P= 0.007, CI=19.521 –29.078).  There is a statistically significant relationship between adolescent parent communication and safe sexual behaviour (X²=152.998, P <0.001, df = 1). The findings of our study revealed that adolescents were not communicating much with parents about sexual and reproductive health issues; and that there is an association between adolescent parent communication and safe sexual behaviour.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 and Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Much of routine cancer care has been disrupted due to the perceived susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. Here, we systematically review the current evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, presentation and outcome of COVID-19 in cancer patients, in order to inform policy and practice going forwards. A keyword-structured systematic search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase and MedRxiv databases for studies reporting primary data on COVID-19 in cancer patients. Studies were critically appraised using the NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool set. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in patients with COVID-19 and pooled in-hospital mortality risk of COVID-19 in cancer patients were derived by random-effects meta-analyses. In total, 110 studies from 10 countries were included. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.8%, 3.5%, I2: 92.0%). Specifically, 1.7% (95% confidence interval 1.3%, 2.3%, I2: 57.6.%) in China and 5.6% (95% confidence interval 4.5%, 6.7%, I2: 82.3%) in Western countries. Patients most commonly presented with non-specific symptoms of fever, dyspnoea and chest tightness in addition to decreased arterial oxygen saturation, ground glass opacities on computer tomography and non-specific changes in inflammatory markers. The pooled in-hospital mortality risk among patients with COVID-19 and cancer was 14.1% (95% confidence interval 9.1%, 19.8%, I2: 52.3%). We identified impeding questions that need to be answered to provide the foundation for an iterative review of the developing evidence base, and inform policy and practice going forwards. Analyses of the available data corroborate an unfavourable outcome of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Our findings encourage future studies to report detailed social, demographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients, including performance status, primary cancer type and stage, as well as a history of anti-cancer therapeutic interventions.

Antenatal Dexamethasone for Early Preterm Birth in Low-Resource Countries

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of antenatal glucocorticoids in women in low-resource countries who are at risk for preterm birth are uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a multicountry, randomized trial involving pregnant women between 26 weeks 0 days and 33 weeks 6 days of gestation who were at risk for preterm birth. The participants were assigned to intramuscular dexamethasone or identical placebo. The primary outcomes were neonatal death alone, stillbirth or neonatal death, and possible maternal bacterial infection; neonatal death alone and stillbirth or neonatal death were evaluated with superiority analyses, and possible maternal bacterial infection was evaluated with a noninferiority analysis with the use of a prespecified margin of 1.25 on the relative scale.

RESULTS

A total of 2852 women (and their 3070 fetuses) from 29 secondary- and tertiary-level hospitals across Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan underwent randomization. The trial was stopped for benefit at the second interim analysis. Neonatal death occurred in 278 of 1417 infants (19.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 331 of 1406 infants (23.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Stillbirth or neonatal death occurred in 393 of 1532 fetuses and infants (25.7%) and in 444 of 1519 fetuses and infants (29.2%), respectively (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.04); the incidence of possible maternal bacterial infection was 4.8% and 6.3%, respectively (relative risk, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.03). There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women in low-resource countries who were at risk for early preterm birth, the use of dexamethasone resulted in significantly lower risks of neonatal death alone and stillbirth or neonatal death than the use of placebo, without an increase in the incidence of possible maternal bacterial infection. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organization; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12617000476336; Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2017/04/008326.).