Kingforbes2943

untries that have undergone similar nutritional transitions.

BMI is a time-intensive measurement to assess nutritional status. learn more Mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) has been studied as a proxy for BMI in adults, but there is no consensus on its optimal use.

We calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) of MUAC for BMI < 18·5, <17 and <16 kg/m2. We designed a system using two MUAC cut-offs, with a healthy (non-thin) 'green' group, a 'yellow' group requiring BMI measurement and a 'red' group who could proceed directly to treatment for thinness.

We retrospectively analysed monitoring data collected by the International Committee of the Red Cross in places of detention.

11 917 male detainees in eight African countries.

MUAC had excellent discriminatory ability with AUROCC 0·87, 0·90 and 0·92 for BMI < 18·5, BMI < 17 and BMI < 16 kg/m2, respectively. An upper cut-off of MUAC 25·5 cm to exclude healthy detainees would result in 64 % fewer detainees requiring BMI screening and had sensitivity 77 % (95 % CI 69·4, 84·7) and specificity 79·6 % (95 % CI 72·6, 86·5) for BMI < 18·5 kg/m2. A lower cut-off of MUAC < 21·0 cm had sensitivity 25·4 % (95 % CI 11·7, 39·1) and specificity 99·0 % (95 % CI 97·9, 100·0) for BMI < 16 kg/m2. An additional 50 kg weight requirement improved specificity to 99·6 % (95 % CI 99·0, 100·0) with similar sensitivity.

A MUAC cut-off of 25·5 cm, above which detainees are classified as healthy and below receive further screening, would result in significant time savings. A cut-off of <21·0 cm and weight <50 kg can identify some detainees with BMI < 16 kg/m2 who require immediate treatment.

A MUAC cut-off of 25·5 cm, above which detainees are classified as healthy and below receive further screening, would result in significant time savings. A cut-off of less then 21·0 cm and weight less then 50 kg can identify some detainees with BMI less then 16 kg/m2 who require immediate treatment.

Refugees are vulnerable to food insecurity (FI). This is attributable to a combination of inequitable social determinants and cultural differences. In 2019, 92 % of refugee resettlement (host country provides residency/citizenship) occurred in high-income countries, but little is known about the factors impacting their food security status in this setting. The review's objective was to therefore thematically identify factors affecting food security among refugees resettling in high-income countries.

This review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Between May-July 2020 and February 2021, peer-reviewed studies focused on FI, and published in English from 2000-2020, were searched on Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Informit, PsychArticles, Proquest and EmBase.

Only studies set in high-income countries were included.

Fifty percent or more of study participants had to be refugees who had resettled within 5 years.

Twenty studies from six high-income countries were included. Culturally based food practices and priorities, confidence in navigating local foodways and transport, level of community connections and capabilities in local language and food preparation were key themes associated with food security.

Utilising the four themes of culture, confidence, community and capabilities, there is an opportunity to improve the cultural sensitivity of measurement tools, develop understanding of how community-based resources (such as social capital) can be leveraged as food security buffers and modify existing food security initiatives to better serve refugee needs.

Utilising the four themes of culture, confidence, community and capabilities, there is an opportunity to improve the cultural sensitivity of measurement tools, develop understanding of how community-based resources (such as social capital) can be leveraged as food security buffers and modify existing food security initiatives to better serve refugee needs.The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has received various distinct perspectives and responses at the local as well as global levels. The current study pays attention to local perspectives, which have appeared in the Sindh province of Pakistan. Focusing on a small town of the province, we have found that some people consider the disease is a "political" game or a "supernatural test." The given perceptions then guide further actions either ignore or adopt the preventive measures or take supernatural preventive measures. Considering it as a test of God, Muslims perform prayers, while Bāgrrī community who practice Hinduism are taking the cow urine to deal with the virus. This study brings these perspectives to the center stage, yet the results cannot be generalized across the country, including the province. Moreover, the study situates these perspectives within the global and socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts and invites more in-depth studies to inquire why such perspectives emerge. We maintain that documenting these various perspectives and analyzing their impacts at the preparedness programs is essential yet understanding the causes behind the stated standpoints-if not more-then is equally essential.

This study sought to identify COVID 19 risk communication materials distributed in Jamaica to mitigate the effects of the disease outbreak. It also sought to explore the effects of health risk communication on vulnerable groups in the context of the pandemic.

A qualitative study was conducted including a content analysis of health risk communications and in-depth interviews with 35 purposively selected elderly, physically disabled, persons with mental health disorders, representatives of government agencies, advocacy and service groups, and caregivers of the vulnerable. Axial coding was applied to data from the interviews and all data were analyzed using the constant comparison technique.

Twelve of the 141 COVID 19 risk communication messages directly targeted the vulnerable. All participants were aware of the relevant risk communication and largely complied. Barriers to messaging awareness and compliance included inappropriate message medium for the deaf and blind, rural location, lack of Internet service or digital devices, limited technology skills, and limited connection to agencies that serve the vulnerable.