Joanna Zając

Objective: To systematically summarise people’s health-related values and preferences related to fat intake. Design: The search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SSCI, CAB, AGRIS, and FSTA up to May 2025 was performed. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Screening of abstracts and full-text articles, extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Data was summarised narratively, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Quantitative and qualitative evidence was analysed using a convergent integrated approach. Setting: This review aimed to include studies from all types of countries; however, most included studies were conducted in high-income settings. Participants: Primary studies of adults (aged ≥18 years), with or without cardiometabolic conditions were included. Results: From 52,166 screened records, we included 11 quantitative and 2 qualitative studies; studies were primarily conducted in high-income countries. Five main themes were identified: i) negative perception of fat in food, ii) positive perception of vegetable oil as being beneficial to health, iii) willingness to lower fat consumption, iv) willingness to pay for healthier fat content, and v) barriers towards unsaturated fat consumption. The most frequently reported themes were negative perception of fat and willingness to consume low-fat products, while prioritizing vegetable oil as a healthy fat. The certainty of the evidence for these themes was very low to moderate, rated down for risk of bias and indirectness issues. Conclusions: The perception of fats and oils in diets is complex and often contradictory, with most people viewing high-fat products as unhealthy and associating them with weight gain, while oils are generally perceived to be beneficial. However, these views can vary significantly depending on gender, age, and dietary patterns. Overall, the evidence supporting these perceptions is of moderate to very low certainty, and to inform guideline recommendations more research is need.

This article presents recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of bleeding during bronchoscopy. The document was developed by a working group convened by the Polish Respiratory Society, which included pulmonologists experienced in bronchoscopic procedures, an anesthesiologist, a thoracic surgeon, a cardiologist, a hematologist, a nurse, and methodologists. Clinical questions were formulated according to the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework, followed by a systematic literature search and critical appraisal of the selected studies. Based on these data, 13 recommendations/good clinical practice points were developed addressing bronchoscopy in patients with thrombocytopenia, abnormal activated partial thromboplastin time or international normalized ratio results, and in those receiving antiplatelet agents, oral anticoagulants, or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Mental health is gaining recognition in sport, but research on coaches remains scarce, and even sparser in elite coaches, despite their central role in high-performance environments. This review examines and synthesises evidence on risk and protective factors related to elite coaches' mental health.Scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Systematic searches were conducted in seven databases (Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE Ultimate, PubMed Central, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, SPORTDiscus) on August 20, 2025, without restrictions on publication year. Additional hand-search (snowballing and thematic reviews screening) was conducted between 15 and 30 October 2025..We screened 4306 records, and 84 studies investigating 5570 elite coaches were included. Most studies originated from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) countries, employed qualitative or cross-sectional design, and examined mixed or team sport samples. Majority of studies were published in the last decade. Six key thematic areas were identified: job characteristics, social and organisational support, personal resources and individual characteristics, coping styles, work–life interface, and lifestyle.While mental health concerns are prevalent among elite coaches, research on risk and protective factors remains sparse, calling for more diverse, longitudinal, and intervention-based studies. Future research should adopt unified terminology, standardized reporting of contextual and participant characteristics, and greater adherence to established reporting guidelines.

Objectives This exploratory study was conducted to find out how well the concept of evidence-based research (EBR) is known among European health researchers with substantial clinical research experience, and which barriers affect the use of an EBR approach. The concept of EBR implies that researchers use evidence synthesis to justify new studies and to inform their design. Design A cross-sectional exploratory survey study. Setting and participants The survey was conducted among European health researchers. Respondents included 205 health researchers (physicians, nurses, dentists, allied health researchers and members of other professions involved in health research) with a doctoral degree or at least 5 years of research experience. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measures were the level of awareness of the concept of EBR and the presence of barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach. Secondary outcome measures include correlations between sociodemographic characteristics (eg, profession) and awareness of EBR. Results We discovered that 84.4% of the respondents initially indicated their awareness of the concept of EBR. Nevertheless, 22.5% of them concluded that, on reading the definition, they either do not know or do not fully comprehend the concept of EBR. The main barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach were related to organisational issues, such as not being attributed resources (30.5% of the respondents), time (24.8%) or access to implement it (14.9%). Conclusions Despite the limitations, this study clearly shows that ongoing initiatives are necessary to raise awareness about the importance of implementing the EBR approach in health research. This paper contributes to a discussion of the issues that obstruct the implementation of the EBR approach and potential solutions to overcome these issues, such as improving the knowledge and skills necessary to practice the EBR approach.

Introduction and objective: Considering the complexity of medical discourse, the enormous amount of information, including fake news, it becomes increasingly challenging to develop health literacy among the general population and to ensure efficient communication of scientific findings on the...

Background: Health is not the only aspect people consider when choosing to consume meat; environmental concerns about the impact of meat (production and distribution) can influence people’s meat choices. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review, searched six databases from inception to June 2020, and synthesised our findings into narrative forms. We integrated the evidence from quantitative and qualitative data sets into joint displays and assessed the confidence in the evidence for each review finding following the GRADE-CERQual approach. Results: Of the 23,531 initial records, we included 70 studies: 56 quantitative, 12 qualitative, and 2 mixed-methods studies. We identified four main themes: (1) reasons for eating meat; (2) reasons for avoiding meat; (3) willingness to change meat consumption; and (4) willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. The overall confidence was low for the reasons for eating and/or buying meat, for avoiding meat, and for willingness to change meat consumption, and was moderate for willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. Conclusions: Regardless of people’s general beliefs about meat and its impact on the environment, most people may be unwilling to change their meat consumption. Future research should address the current limitations of the research evidence to assess whether people are willing to make a change when properly informed.

Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are considered a reliable source of information in healthcare. We aimed to explore the association of several characteristics of SR/MAs addressing nutrition in cancer prevention and their quality/risk of bias (using assessments from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools). The analysis included 101 SR/MAs identified in a systematic survey. Associations of each specified characteristic (e.g., information about the protocol, publication year, reported use of GRADE, or other methods for assessing overall certainty of evidence) with the number of AMSTAR-2 not met (‘No’ responses) and the number of ROBIS items met (‘Probably Yes’ or “Yes’ responses) were examined. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of the number of ‘No’ answers (indicating lower quality) for all AMSTAR-2 items and the number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (indicating higher quality/lower concern for bias) for all ROBIS items. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with at least one domain assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in the ROBIS tool. In multivariable analysis, SR/MAs not reporting use of any quality/risk of bias assessment instrument for primary studies were associated with a higher number of ‘No’ answers for all AMSTAR-2 items (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.45), and a lower number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers for all ROBIS items (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.87). Providing information about the protocol and search for unpublished studies was associated with a lower number of ‘No’ answers (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.97 and IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95, respectively) and a higher number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.74 and IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.52, respectively). Not using at least one quality/risk of bias assessment tool for primary studies within an SR/MA was associated with lower odds that a study would be assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in at least one ROBIS domain (odds ratio 0.061, 95% CI 0.007–0.527). Adherence to methodological standards in the development of SR/MAs was associated with a higher overall quality of SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention.