Background: Nonadherence to antihypertensive medications is the leading cause of poor blood pressure control and thereby cardiovascular diseases and mortality worldwide. Methods and Results: We investigated the global epidemiology, regional differences, and trend of antihypertensive medication nonadherence via a systematic review and meta‐analyses of data from 2010 to 2020. Multiple medical databases and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for articles. Observational studies reporting the proportion of patients with anti‐hypertensive medication nonadherence were included. The proportion of nonadherence, publication year, year of first recruitment, country, and health outcomes attributable to antihypertensive medication nonadherence were extracted. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts, classified countries according to levels of income and locations, and extracted data. The Joanna Briggs Institute prevalence critical appraisal tool was used to rate the included studies. Prevalence meta‐analyses were conducted using a fixed‐effects model, and trends in prevalence were analyzed using meta‐regression. The certainty of evidence concerning the effect of health consequences of nonadherence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. A total of 161 studies were included. Subject to different detection methods, the global prevalence of anti‐hypertensive medication nonadherence was 27% to 40%. Nonadherence was more prevalent in low‐ to middle‐income countries than in high‐income countries, and in non‐Western countries than in Western countries. No significant trend in prevalence was detected between 2010 and 2020. Patients with antihypertensive medication nonadherence had suboptimal blood pressure control, complications from hypertension, all‐cause hospitalization, and all‐cause mortality. Conclusions: While high prevalence of anti‐hypertensive medication nonadherence was detected worldwide, higher prevalence was detected in low‐ to middle‐income and non‐Western countries. Interventions are urgently required, especially in these regions. Current evidence is limited by high heterogeneity. Registration: URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42021259860.

Vaccination is an effective way in providing protection against COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes. However, vaccine resistance and hesitancy are a great concern among vulnerable populations including older adults who live alone or only with an older partner. This study examined their vaccination status and reasons and associated factors of vaccine resistance and hesitancy. A cross-sectional study was conducted among older adults living alone or only with an older partner in communities in Hong Kong. Participants were interviewed between October 2021 and February 2022. Logistic regression analyses were employed to examine factors associated with vaccine resistance and hesitancy. Of the 2109 included participants, the mean age was 79.3 years (SD 7.6), 1460 (69.2%) were female, 1334 (63.3%) lived alone, and 1621 (76.9%) were receiving social security support. The vaccine uptake, non-uptake (i.e., resistance), and hesitancy rates were 50.1%, 34.4%, and 15.5%, respectively. The top four reasons for vaccine resistance and hesitancy were “Not feeling in good health” (27%), “Worry about vaccine side effects” (18%), “Feeling no need” (10%), and “Lack of recommendation from doctors” (9%). Vaccine resistance and hesitancy was significantly associated with older age, living alone, more chronic conditions, fewer types of social media use, and lower self-rated health status. Similar associations can be observed in their separate analysis for vaccine resistance and vaccine hesitancy, and ever hospital admission over the past 6 months was additionally related to vaccine hesitancy. Older people who live alone or only with an older partner had a low vaccination rate. Poor health or worry about vaccine side effects were the most common reasons for their vaccine resistance and hesitancy. Actions are greatly needed to improve the uptake rate among this vulnerable population, especially those who were older, have poorer health, and use less social media.

Background: Low health literacy (HL) is negatively associated with mammography screening uptake. However, evidence of the links between poor HL and low mammography screening participation is scarce.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey among participants of a cancer screening program. We measured HL using a validated Chinese instrument. We assessed breast cancer screening-related beliefs using the Health Belief Model and the accuracy of risk perception. We used multivariable regression models to estimate the relationship between HL and the outcomes.Results: A total of 821 females were included. 264 (32.2%) had excellent or sufficient, 353 (43.0%) had problematic, and 204 (24.8%) had inadequate health literacy (IHL). Women with IHL were more likely to agree that high price (β = -0.211, 95% CI -0.354 to -0.069), lack of time (β = -0.219, 95% CI -0.351 to -0.088), inconvenient service time (β = -0.291, 95% CI -0.421 to -0.160), long waiting time (β = -0.305, 95% CI -0.447 to -0.164), fear of positive results (β = -0.200, 95% CI -0.342 to -0.058), embarrassment (β = -0.225, 95% CI -0.364 to -0.086), fear of pain (β = -0.154, 95% CI -0.298 to -0.010), fear of radiation (β = -0.177, 95% CI -0.298 to -0.056), lack of knowledge on service location (β = -0.475, 95% CI -0.615 to -0.335), and lack of knowledge on mammography (β = -0.360, 95% CI -0.492 to -0.228) were barriers. They were also less likely to have an accurate breast cancer risk perception (aOR 0.572, 95% CI 0.341 to 0.956).Conclusion: Women with lower HL could have stronger perceived barriers to BC screening and an over-estimation of their breast cancer risk. Tackling emotional and knowledge barriers, financial and logistical assistance, and guidance on risk perception are needed to increase their breast cancer screening uptake.

Background Although the Mediterranean diet (MD) has beneficial effects on heart health, cognitive function, cancer, and other chronic diseases, little is known about its effect on rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aimed to examine the association between adherence to MD and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis RA. Methods We conducted a cohort study and a systematic review. A total of 117,341 RA-free participants from the UK Biobank were included in 2006–2010 and followed for incident RA until 2021. The MEDI-LITE score was calculated using the consumption of nine food components to estimate adherence to MD. We examined the associations between the MEDI-LITE score and the risk of RA using the Cox proportional hazard model. Relevant studies for the systematic review were identified through six databases. We performed a meta-analysis to pool the effect estimates from our cohort study and identified relevant studies. Results During a median follow-up of 9.42 years, 773 participants developed RA. Compared with the bottom quartile of the MEDI-LITE score, the risk of RA was lower in the highest quartile (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.713, 95% CI = 0.580 to 0.876). Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the highest versus lowest adherence to MD and the risk of RA was 0.838 (95% CI = 0.758 to 0.926). Conclusion Higher adherence to MD was associated with a lower risk of RA. Our finding provides updated evidence on the importance of diet in RA development and novel directions for RA prevention.

Background: Recommendation from doctors is a well-recognized motivator toward vaccine uptake. Family doctors are in the prime position to advise the public on COVID-19 vaccination. We studied the practice and concerns of frontline family doctors concerning COVID-19 vaccination recommendations to patients. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of all family doctors in the Hong Kong College of Family Physicians between June and July 2021. Their practice of making COVID-19 recommendation to patients was assessed. Based on the Health Belief Model, factors associated with doctors’ recommendation practices were explored and examined. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to investigate the factors, including COVID-19 vaccine attributes, associated with doctors’ practices in making recommendations. Their own vaccination status and psychological antecedents to vaccine hesitancy were measured. Results: A total of 312 family doctors responded (a 17.6% response rate). The proportion of doctors who had received COVID-19 vaccines was 90.1%. The proportion of doctors who would recommend all patients without contraindications for the vaccination was 64.4%. The proportion of doctors who would proactively discuss COVID-19 vaccines with patients was 52.9%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that doctors’ own COVID-19 vaccination status was the strongest predictor of family doctors making a recommendation to patients (aOR 12.23 95% CI 3.45–43.33). Longer duration of practice, willingness to initiate the relevant discussion with patients and less worry about vaccine side effects on chronic illness patients were the other factors associated with making a COVID-19 vaccination recommendation. Conclusions: Family doctors should be encouraged to get vaccinated themselves and initiate discussions with patients about COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine safety data on patients with chronic illness, training and guidelines for junior doctors may facilitate the COVID-19 vaccination recommendation practices of family doctors.

Objectives: To assess impacts of early detection and prompt antiretroviral therapy (ART) on the latest epidemiologic situation to inform intervention strategy.Methods: We analysed data from two clinical cohorts in Hong Kong where sexual transmission accounted for the majority of HIV infections. The two cohorts comprised patients newly diagnosed in 2007–2008 and 2016–2018 respectively. Secular trend and differences between men who have sex with men (MSM) and heterosexual patients were examined. Predictors of late presentation (defined as CD4 ≤350 or AIDS-defining illness within 3 months of diagnosis) and prolonged interval between diagnosis and ART initiation were assessed by multivariable regressions.Results: There were 1,136 newly diagnosed HIV patients with 644 in the first and 492 in the second cohort, a majority (91.7%) presented with sexually acquired infection. There were less MSM in the first than the second cohort (50.3%% vs 87.8%, χ²= 117.05, p<0.001). The mean (SD) number of days between diagnosis and ART initiation decreased from 514.3 (516.1) to 61.8 (94.2) days across the two cohorts. Younger age, non-Chinese, outpatient-based service and lower CD4 count were predictors of faster ART initiation in the first but not in the second cohort. Interval between diagnosis and ART initiation became highly uniform among groups in the second cohort. Nearly 60% were classified as late presenters in both cohorts. Heterosexuals (aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.13–2.19) had a higher risk of late presentation.Conclusions: There was remarkable improvement in acceleration of ART initiation. Clinical implementation of accelerated ART recommendations has been effective for both MSM and heterosexuals. Late presentation was more marked among heterosexuals and remained a problem. The continued phenomenon of late presentation could offset the epidemiologic gains from accelerated ART initiation.