Background: The Spanish population presents higher levels of loneliness than citizens of countries in Northern Europe. Numerous studies have linked loneliness to increased morbidity and mortality, but very few studies have associated loneliness with healthy lifestyles. The objectives of this research are to identify the feeling of unwanted loneliness in various age and gender groups in the city of Alcalá de Henares (Madrid, Spain), to determine lifestyle habits in the areas of diet and physical exercise, and to examine the association between lifestyle habits and perceived loneliness. Methods: A cross-sectional, observational and analytical study on the perception of loneliness among men (59.06%) and women (60.06%) in a sample (n = 611) of the general population (N = 198,945), by means of random assignment of a health survey, was conducted. The data were collected using an ad hoc questionnaire. The data were stratified and analyzed with the IBM SSPS^® v.25 software package. Results: The frequency of loneliness is stratified by sex and age, and healthy lifestyle habits in terms of diet and physical exercise are analyzed. Conclusions: People with perceived loneliness do not have worse lifestyle habits. However, women living with other people have a higher perception of loneliness than those living alone. Specifically, the perception of loneliness in young adult women could suggest a low level of moderate physical exercise.

Background: Clinical trials are known to provide cause-and-effect results and data with low levels of bias. However, a lack of funding for clinical trials, which are considered expensive, means that academic sponsors are rarely able to conduct them. Academic trials are considered highly relevant for the valuable results they provide for clinical questions. This is why initiatives to conduct unfunded clinical trials have been identified as an important issue to pay attention to in future studies. Therefore, we present our initiative through Rogers’ theory, which is highlighted in the literature for diffusing innovative change across organizations. Objective: The purpose of this paper was to describe our case regarding management for conducting a nonfunded nurse-led clinical trial based on our previous low-interventional clinical trial across a specific health organization and with nurses. Methods: We conducted a low-intervention, nonexternally funded clinical trial using the human and material resources available on site. We managed our trial in a clinical trial unit where there were staff, sources, and ongoing commercial clinical trials. We conducted our trial based on an ongoing commercial trial, and, to do so, we needed behavioral changes. We relied on Rogers’ theory, and we identified strengths and barriers to change by analyzing actors' characteristics, perceptions of the situation, motivation, and information. Afterward, we divided the staff according to their characteristics related to innovation and change into permanent staff (research staff with a culture of change) and nonpermanent staff (nursing staff with occasional attendance and resistance to change). First, we preselected only those nurses who were more aware of change (innovators and pioneers) to participate in our trial to avoid a massive rejection, and later, we asked others to join (late adopters). We followed Rogers’ phases. For research staff who were aware of the funding, we focused on the “persuasion phase,” while for nursing staff, we mixed the “knowledge and persuasion phases” and used pioneers and early adopters as a positive example for other nurses as well as nonfinancial incentives (persuasion). Our trial consisted of different methods of vein cannulation, which was performed in the ongoing commercial trial. Thus, the entire development of our low-interventional clinical trial was conducted without interfering at any point with the parallel commercial clinical trial. Results: Our management allowed effective conduct of our study, and we met our aims without external funding and without ethical impact during the commercial clinical trial. Costs remained low, primarily because the major expenses were covered by the commercial clinical trial as an inherent part of its design. Conclusions: Our initiative to conduct a low-intervention clinical trial with no or limited funding was cost-effective. This initiative can be used by researchers with valuable academic research questions who do not have the external funding to conduct studies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04027218; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04027218 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/56062

La inteligencia artificial (IA) ha irrumpido con fuerza en muchos sectores de la sociedad y la investigación científica es uno de ellos. Su impacto no es poco importante, dado el amplio uso que se hace de estas herramientas en toda la labor investigadora. En Salud Pública, donde las decisiones afectan a las poblaciones y se basan en la mejor evidencia disponible, esto se puede traducir en políticas ineficaces. La Salud Pública se asienta en la confianza que los ciudadanos depositan en las instituciones, lo que favorece la adherencia a las medidas preventivas, y esta confianza puede verse seriamente dañada si no hay una declaración de transparencia del uso de la IA en la investigación científica. Si esta evidencia proviene de publicaciones sesgadas, cabe preguntarse quién responde por las consecuencias de políticas que se aplican a los ciudadanos y ciudadanas. Por otro lado, si la IA es capaz de generar información valiosa en menos tiempo que los humanos, no sería ético renunciar a su uso, poniendo en riesgo a las personas. Por tanto, el uso de la IA debe estar al servicio de los fines de la Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, siendo un medio para un fin superior que es el bien de las personas.