This study aimed to compare the use of the bioelectrical impedance device (BIA) seca^® mBCA 515 using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method, for body composition assessment in adults across the spectrum of body mass indices. It explores the utility of simple anthropometric measures (the waist height ratio (WHtR) and waist circumference (WC)) for the assessment of obesity. In the morning after an overnight fast (10 h), 30 participants underwent a body composition DXA (GE iDXA) scan, BIA (seca 515), and anthropometric measures. Compared to the DXA reference measure, the BIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 0.32 kg (limits of agreement −3.8 kg, 4.4 kg); overestimated fat free mass (FFM) by 0.43 kg (limits of agreement −8.2 kg, 4.3 kg). Some of the variation was explained by body mass index (BMI), as for FM, the mean difference of the normal range BMI group was smaller than for the overweight/obese group (0.25 kg and 0.35 kg, respectively) with wider limits of agreement (−4.30 kg, 4.81 kg, and −3.61 kg, 4.30 kg, respectively). There were significant differences in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume measurements between methods with BIA systematically overestimating VAT compared to DXA. WC was more strongly correlated with DXA FM (rho = 0.90, p < 0.001) than WHtR (rho = 0.83, p < 0.001). BIA had some agreement with DXA; however, they are not equivalent measures for the range of BMIs explored, with DXA remaining the more informative tool. WC is a useful and simple assessment tool for obesity.

The relationship between alcohol consumption and body weight is complex and inconclusive being potentially mediated by alcohol type, habitual consumption levels and sex differences. Heavy and regular alcohol consumption has been positively correlated with increasing body weight, although it is unclear whether this is due to alcohol consumption per se or to additional energy intake from food. This review explores the effects of alcohol consumption on food energy intake in healthy adults. CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched through February 2018 for crossover and randomised controlled trials where an alcohol dose was compared with a non-alcohol condition. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. A total of twenty-two studies involving 701 participants were included from the 18 427 papers retrieved. Studies consistently demonstrated no compensation for alcoholic beverage energy intake, with dietary energy intake not decreasing due to alcoholic beverage ingestion. Meta-analyses using the random-effects model were conducted on twelve studies and demonstrated that alcoholic beverage consumption significantly increased food energy intake and total energy intake compared with a non-alcoholic comparator by weighted mean differences of 343 (95 % CI 161, 525) and 1072 (95 % CI 820, 1323) kJ, respectively. Generalisability is limited to younger adults (18–37 years), and meta-analyses for some outcomes had substantial statistical heterogeneity or evidence of small-study effects. This review suggests that adults do not compensate appropriately for alcohol energy by eating less, and a relatively modest alcohol dose may lead to an increase in food consumption.

As COVID-19 vaccinations became available and were proven effective in preventing serious infection, uptake amongst individuals varied, including in medically vulnerable populations. This cross-sectional multi-site study examined vaccine uptake, hesitancy, and explanatory factors amongst people with serious and/or chronic health conditions, including the impact of underlying disease on attitudes to vaccination. A 42-item survey was distributed to people with cancer, diabetes, or multiple sclerosis across ten Australian health services from 30 June to 5 October 2021. The survey evaluated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics and incorporated three validated scales measuring vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related beliefs generally and specific to their disease: the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Among 4683 participants (2548 [54.4%] female, 2108 [45.0%] male, 27 [0.6%] other; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [13.3] years; 3560 [76.0%] cancer, 842 [18.0%] diabetes, and 281 [6.0%] multiple sclerosis), 3813 (81.5%) self-reported having at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Unvaccinated status was associated with younger age, female sex, lower education and income, English as a second language, and residence in regional areas. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report greater vaccine hesitancy and more negative perceptions toward vaccines. Disease-related vaccine concerns were associated with unvaccinated status and hesitancy, including greater complacency about COVID-19 infection, and concerns relating to vaccine efficacy and impact on their disease and/or treatment. This highlights the need to develop targeted strategies and education about COVID-19 vaccination to support medically vulnerable populations and health professionals.

The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and precision of body compartment measures, in particular visceral adipose tissue, in weight stable adults over a range of BMIs using GE-Lunar iDXA. Weight-stable participants aged 18–65 years had a total body composition scan on GE-Lunar iDXA either on three separate occasions over a three month period (n = 51), or on a single occasion for duplicate scans with repositioning (n = 30). The coefficient of variation (CV%) and least significant change (LSC) of body compartments were calculated. The CV was higher for all measures over three months (range 0.8–5.9%) compared with same-day precision-scans (all < 2%). The CV for visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was considerably higher than all other body compartments (42.2% three months, 16.2% same day scanning). To accurately measure VAT mass using the GE iDXA it is recommended that participants have a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m², or VAT mass > 500 g. Changes observed in VAT mass levels below 500 g should be interpreted with caution due to lack of precision and reliability. All other compartmental measures demonstrated good reliability, with less than 6% variation over three months.

Background: People with chronic illnesses have increased morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection. The influence of a person’s serious and/or comorbid chronic illness on COVID-19 vaccine uptake is not well understood. Aim: To undertake an in-depth exploration of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among those with various serious and/or chronic diseases in the Australian context, using secondary data analysis of a survey study. Methods: Adults with cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis (MS) were recruited from 10 Australian health services to undertake a cross-sectional online survey (30 June to 5 October 2021) about COVID-19 vaccine uptake, vaccine hesitancy, confidence and complacency and disease-related decision-making impact. Free-text responses were invited regarding thoughts and feelings about the interaction between the participant’s disease, COVID-19, and vaccination. Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken using an iterative process and representative verbatim quotes were chosen to illustrate the themes. Results: Of 4683 survey responses (cancer 3560, diabetes 842, and MS 281), 1604 (34.3%) included free-text comments for qualitative analysis. Participants who provided these were significantly less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccination than those who did not comment (72.4% and 86.2%, respectively). People with diabetes were significantly less likely to provide free-text comments than those with cancer or MS (29.0%, 35.1% and 39.9%, respectively). Four key themes were identified from qualitative analysis, which were similar across disease states: (1) having a chronic disease heightened perceived susceptibility to and perceived severity of COVID-19; (2) perceived impact of vaccination on chronic disease management and disease-related safety; (3) uncertain benefits of COVID-19 vaccine; and (4) overwhelming information overload disempowering patients. Conclusions: This qualitative analysis highlights an additional layer of complexity related to COVID-19 vaccination decision making in people with underlying health conditions. Appreciation of higher susceptibility to severe COVID-19 outcomes appears to be weighed against uncertain impacts of the vaccine on the progression and management of the comorbid disease. Interactions by clinicians addressing individual factors may alleviate concerns and maximise vaccine uptake in people with significant underlying health conditions.

Background: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. Results: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19–95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. Conclusions: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.