The very rapid worldwide increase in mobile phone use in the last decade has generated considerable interest in the possible health effects of exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields. A multinational case–control study, INTERPHONE, was set-up to investigate whether mobile phone use increases the risk of cancer and, more specifically, whether the RF fields emitted by mobile phones are carcinogenic. The study focused on tumours arising in the tissues most exposed to RF fields from mobile phones: glioma, meningioma, acoustic neurinoma and parotid gland tumours. In addition to a detailed history of mobile phone use, information was collected on a number of known and potential risk factors for these tumours. The study was conducted in 13 countries. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the UK using a common core protocol. This paper describes the study design and methods and the main characteristics of the study population. INTERPHONE is the largest case–control study to date investigating risks related to mobile phone use and to other potential risk factors for the tumours of interest and includes 2,765 glioma, 2,425 meningioma, 1,121 acoustic neurinoma, 109 malignant parotid gland tumour cases and 7,658 controls. Particular attention was paid to estimating the amount and direction of potential recall and participation biases and their impact on the study results.

Background and Purpose—: The benefits of chronic disease self-management programs for stroke survivors are uncertain because individuals with severe impairments have been excluded from previous research. We undertook a phase II randomized controlled trial to determine whether a self-management program designed for survivors (SSMP; 8 weeks) was safe and feasible compared to standard care (control) or a generic self-management program (generic; 6 weeks). Methods—: Stroke survivors were recruited from 7 South Australian hospitals via a letter or indirectly (eg, newspapers). Eligible participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio of 50 per group. Primary outcomes were recruitment, participation, and participant safety. Secondary outcomes were positive and active engagement in life using the Health Education Impact Questionnaire and characteristics of quality of life and mood at 6 months from program completion. Results—: Of 315 people screened, 149 were eligible and 143 were randomized (48 SSMP, 47 generic, 48 control); mean age was 69 years (SD, 11) and 59% were female. Demographic features were similar between groups and 41% had severe cognitive impairment; 57% accessed the interventions, with 52% SSMP and 38% generic completing >50% of sessions ( P =0.18). Thirty-two participants reported adverse events (7 control, 12 generic, 13 SSMP; P =0.3; 34% severe); however, none was attributable to the interventions. Potential benefits for improved mood were found. Conclusions—: SSMP was safe and feasible. Benefits of the stroke-specific program over the generic program included greater participation and completion rates. An efficacy trial is warranted given the forecast growth in the stroke population and improved survival trends.

Although medication adherence is commonly measured in electronic datasets using the proportion of days covered (PDC), no standardized approach is used to calculate and report this measure. We conducted a scoping review to understand the approaches taken to calculate and report the PDC for cardiovascular medicines to develop improved guidance for researchers using this measure. After prespecifying methods in a registered protocol, we searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus and grey literature (1 July 2012 to 14 December 2020) for articles containing the terms “proportion of days covered” and “cardiovascular medicine”, or synonyms and subject headings. Of the 523 articles identified, 316 were reviewed in full and 76 were included (93% observational studies; 47% from the USA; 2 grey literature articles). In 45 articles (59%), the PDC was measured from the first dispensing/claim date. Good adherence was defined as 80% PDC in 61 articles, 56% of which contained a rationale for selecting this threshold. The following parameters, important for deriving the PDC, were often not reported/unclear: switching (53%), early refills (45%), in‐hospital supplies (45%), presupply (28%) and survival (7%). Of the 46 articles where dosing information was unavailable, 59% reported how doses were imputed. To improve the transparent and systematic reporting of the PDC, we propose the TEN‐SPIDERS tool, covering the following PDC parameters: Threshold, Eligibility criteria, Numerator and denominator, Survival, Presupply, In‐hospital supplies, Dosing, Early Refills, and Switching. Use of this tool will standardize reporting of the PDC to facilitate reliable comparisons of medication adherence estimates between studies.