Objective To quantify the dose-response relation between consumption of whole grain and specific types of grains and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality. Data sources PubMed and Embase searched up to 3 April 2016. Study selection Prospective studies reporting adjusted relative risk estimates for the association between intake of whole grains or specific types of grains and cardiovascular disease, total cancer, all cause or cause specific mortality. Data synthesis Summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals calculated with a random effects model. Results 45 studies (64 publications) were included. The summary relative risks per 90 g/day increase in whole grain intake (90 g is equivalent to three servings—for example, two slices of bread and one bowl of cereal or one and a half pieces of pita bread made from whole grains) was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.87; I²=9%, n=7 studies) for coronary heart disease, 0.88 (0.75 to 1.03; I²=56%, n=6) for stroke, and 0.78 (0.73 to 0.85; I²=40%, n=10) for cardiovascular disease, with similar results when studies were stratified by whether the outcome was incidence or mortality. The relative risks for morality were 0.85 (0.80 to 0.91; I²=37%, n=6) for total cancer, 0.83 (0.77 to 0.90; I²=83%, n=11) for all causes, 0.78 (0.70 to 0.87; I²=0%, n=4) for respiratory disease, 0.49 (0.23 to 1.05; I²=85%, n=4) for diabetes, 0.74 (0.56 to 0.96; I²=0%, n=3) for infectious diseases, 1.15 (0.66 to 2.02; I²=79%, n=2) for diseases of the nervous system disease, and 0.78 (0.75 to 0.82; I²=0%, n=5) for all non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes. Reductions in risk were observed up to an intake of 210-225 g/day (seven to seven and a half servings per day) for most of the outcomes. Intakes of specific types of whole grains including whole grain bread, whole grain breakfast cereals, and added bran, as well as total bread and total breakfast cereals were also associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular disease and/or all cause mortality, but there was little evidence of an association with refined grains, white rice, total rice, or total grains. Conclusions This meta-analysis provides further evidence that whole grain intake is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and total cancer, and mortality from all causes, respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, diabetes, and all non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes. These findings support dietary guidelines that recommend increased intake of whole grain to reduce the risk of chronic diseases and premature mortality.

Although nut consumption has been associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, data on less common causes of death has not been systematically assessed. Previous reviews missed several studies and additional studies have since been published. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of nut consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. PubMed and Embase were searched for prospective studies of nut consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in adult populations published up to July 19, 2016. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. The burden of mortality attributable to low nut consumption was calculated for selected regions. Twenty studies (29 publications) were included in the meta-analysis. The summary RRs per 28 grams/day increase in nut intake was for coronary heart disease, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63–0.80, I2 = 47%, n = 11), stroke, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.83–1.05, I2 = 14%, n = 11), cardiovascular disease, 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70–0.88, I2 = 60%, n = 12), total cancer, 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76–0.94, I2 = 42%, n = 8), all-cause mortality, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72–0.84, I2 = 66%, n = 15), and for mortality from respiratory disease, 0.48 (95% CI: 0.26–0.89, I2 = 61%, n = 3), diabetes, 0.61 (95% CI: 0.43–0.88, I2 = 0%, n = 4), neurodegenerative disease, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.40–1.08, I2 = 5.9%, n = 3), infectious disease, 0.25 (95% CI: 0.07–0.85, I2 = 54%, n = 2), and kidney disease, 0.27 (95% CI: 0.04–1.91, I2 = 61%, n = 2). The results were similar for tree nuts and peanuts. If the associations are causal, an estimated 4.4 million premature deaths in the America, Europe, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific would be attributable to a nut intake below 20 grams per day in 2013. Higher nut intake is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality, and mortality from respiratory disease, diabetes, and infections.

Child survival is dependent on several factors including high vaccination coverage. Timely receipt of vaccines ensures optimal immune response to the vaccines. Yet timeliness is not usually emphasized in estimating population immunity. In addition to examining timeliness of the recommended Expanded Programme for Immunisation (EPI) vaccines, this paper identifies predictors of untimely vaccination among children aged 10 to 23 months in Kampala. In addition to the household survey interview questions, additional data sources for variables included data collection of child's weight and length. Vaccination dates were obtained from child health cards. Timeliness of vaccinations were assessed with Kaplan–Meier time-to-event analysis for each vaccine based on the following time ranges (lowest–highest target age): BCG (birth–8 weeks), polio 0 (birth–4 weeks), three polio and three pentavalent vaccines (4 weeks–2 months; 8 weeks–4 months; 12 weeks–6 months) and measles vaccine (38 weeks–12 months). Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with vaccination timeliness. About half of 821 children received all vaccines within the recommended time ranges (45.6%; 95% CI 39.8–51.2). Timely receipt of vaccinations was lowest for measles (67.5%; 95% CI 60.5–73.8) and highest for BCG vaccine (92.7%: 95% CI 88.1–95.6). For measles, 10.7% (95% CI 6.8–16.4) of the vaccinations were administered earlier than the recommended time. Vaccinations that were not received within the recommended age ranges were associated with increasing number of children per woman (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR); 1.84, 95% CI 1.29–2.64), non-delivery at health facilities (AHR 1.58, 95% CI 1.02–2.46), being unmarried (AHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15–1.94) or being in the lowest wealth quintile (AHR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11–1.72). Strategies to improve vaccination practices among the poorest, single, multiparous women and among mothers who do not deliver at health facilities are necessary to improve timeliness of vaccinations.

Background: Interpreting and utilizing the findings of nutritional research can be challenging to clinicians, policy makers, and even researchers. To make better decisions about diet, innovative methods that integrate best evidence are needed. We have developed a decision support model that predicts how dietary choices affect life expectancy (LE).Methods and findings: Based on meta-analyses and data from the Global Burden of Disease study (2019), we used life table methodology to estimate how LE changes with sustained changes in the intake of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, refined grains, nuts, legumes, fish, eggs, milk/dairy, red meat, processed meat, and sugar-sweetened beverages. We present estimates (with 95% uncertainty intervals [95% UIs]) for an optimized diet and a feasibility approach diet. An optimal diet had substantially higher intake than a typical diet of whole grains, legumes, fish, fruits, vegetables, and included a handful of nuts, while reducing red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and refined grains. A feasibility approach diet was a midpoint between an optimal and a typical Western diet. A sustained change from a typical Western diet to the optimal diet from age 20 years would increase LE by more than a decade for women from the United States (10.7 [95% UI 8.4 to 12.3] years) and men (13.0 [95% UI 9.4 to 14.3] years). The largest gains would be made by eating more legumes (females: 2.2 [95% UI 1.1 to 3.4]; males: 2.5 [95% UI 1.1 to 3.9]), whole grains (females: 2.0 [95% UI 1.3 to 2.7]; males: 2.3 [95% UI 1.6 to 3.0]), and nuts (females: 1.7 [95% UI 1.5 to 2.0]; males: 2.0 [95% UI 1.7 to 2.3]), and less red meat (females: 1.6 [95% UI 1.5 to 1.8]; males: 1.9 [95% UI 1.7 to 2.1]) and processed meat (females: 1.6 [95% UI 1.5 to 1.8]; males: 1.9 [95% UI 1.7 to 2.1]). Changing from a typical diet to the optimized diet at age 60 years would increase LE by 8.0 (95% UI 6.2 to 9.3) years for women and 8.8 (95% UI 6.8 to 10.0) years for men, and 80-year-olds would gain 3.4 years (95% UI females: 2.6 to 3.8/males: 2.7 to 3.9). Change from typical to feasibility approach diet would increase LE by 6.2 (95% UI 3.5 to 8.1) years for 20-year-old women from the United States and 7.3 (95% UI 4.7 to 9.5) years for men. Using NutriGrade, the overall quality of evidence was assessed as moderate. The methodology provides population estimates under given assumptions and is not meant as individualized forecasting, with study limitations that include uncertainty for time to achieve full effects, the effect of eggs, white meat, and oils, individual variation in protective and risk factors, uncertainties for future development of medical treatments; and changes in lifestyle.Conclusions: A sustained dietary change may give substantial health gains for people of all ages both for optimized and feasible changes. Gains are predicted to be larger the earlier the dietary changes are initiated in life. The Food4HealthyLife calculator that we provide online could be useful for clinicians, policy makers, and laypeople to understand the health impact of dietary choices.