PHealthy
PHealthy OP t1_j3z0c9s wrote
Reply to comment by A_Plumber2020 in Music listeners report lower stress, better mood amid COVID lockdowns by PHealthy
Using music to handle stress.
PHealthy OP t1_j3yd3sg wrote
Key Points
Question Was listening to music in daily life during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions associated with lower stress and better mood?
Findings In this cohort study of 711 adults, listening to music was significantly associated with lower levels of stress. Moreover, music listening was significantly associated with improved mood, particularly for those with elevated chronic stress during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Meaning These findings suggest that listening to music in daily life, a simple intervention, may support beneficial health outcomes during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
Abstract
Importance Music listening is a universal human experience. People of all ages and cultures often use music to reduce stress and improve mood, particularly in times of crisis. However, ecologically valid research examining the real-time association of music listening with stress and mood during the COVID-19 pandemic is scarce.
Objective To explore the associations between listening to music and the perceptions of stress and mood using ecological momentary assessment during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study conducted between April 1 and May 8, 2020, adults from the general population residing in Austria and Italy were prompted by an app on their smartphone to report data 5 times per day across 7 consecutive days. Participants provided data on their real-time and real-life experiences in their natural environment while strict lockdown measures were in place. Data analysis was performed from March 2021 to February 2022.
Exposures Data on self-reported music listening were recorded by means of mobile-based assessments. Perceived chronic stress was assessed once at the end of the study.
Main Outcomes and Measures Perceptions of momentary stress and mood were measured using visual analog scales (score range, 0-100, where 0 indicates not at all and 100 indicates very much) by means of mobile app–based assessments.
Results The final sample comprised 711 participants (497 women [69.9%]; median age, 27.0 years [IQR, 24.0-36.0 years]). Participants provided a total of 19 641 data points, including 4677 music listening reports. Music listening was prospectively associated with lower momentary stress levels (β, −0.92; 95% CI, −1.80 to −0.04; P = .04) and improvements in mood valence (β, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.17-2.63; P < .001), especially if the music was perceived as happy. Individuals with higher levels of chronic stress reported improved mood valence after music listening (β, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.22; P = .02).
Conclusions and Relevance The present findings suggest that music listening may be a means to modulate stress and mood during psychologically demanding periods. Individuals experiencing heightened momentary and/or chronic stress because of the challenges brought about by COVID-19 pandemic–related restrictions might consider music as an easily accessible tool for the management of stress and mood in daily life.
PHealthy t1_j2tszde wrote
PHealthy t1_j2szr5y wrote
Reply to comment by ScienceModerator in Vote for Best of r/science 2022! by ScienceModerator
Sometimes different bacteria get close together and can exchange little bits of DNA. These little bits can sometimes contain antibiotic resistance genes. The researchers found a bacteria in sewage with these genes that we don't usually screen for this type of resistance gene. The implication then is that these genes are probably more widespread than we think. (But we all knew that anyway, good to have evidence though) by u/PHealthy
PHealthy t1_ixd6efp wrote
Reply to AskScience AMA Series: We're Competing to Make the Mars Habitat Food Production System! AUA! by AskScienceModerator
Zero maintenance sounds like an over sell, is it truly zero?
Isn't this concept basically the same idea as those ridiculously over-priced aerogardens?
PHealthy t1_ixd5o4s wrote
Reply to comment by Furrypocketpussy in Why do immune reactions take place in the lymph nodes closest to the site of infection? by arlomurfett
In case anyone likes pictures:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-021-00726-4/figures/1
PHealthy t1_irrdrjn wrote
Reply to AskScience AMA Series: I am Prof. Beverley Hunt, OBE, and I am a hematologist in London, England. I am also chair of the World Thrombosis Day Steering Committee. I am here to talk about why MTHFR testing is unnecessary and can cause misinterpretation. AMA! by AskScienceModerator
Just a reminder that we remove comments for offensive language. Medical advice questions are also removed.
MTHFR stands for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase.
PHealthy t1_irrd0r8 wrote
Reply to AskScience AMA Series: I am Prof. Beverley Hunt, OBE, and I am a hematologist in London, England. I am also chair of the World Thrombosis Day Steering Committee. I am here to talk about why MTHFR testing is unnecessary and can cause misinterpretation. AMA! by AskScienceModerator
Why do you think that the alternative medicine industry has really latched on to MTHFR testing?
PHealthy OP t1_j4r5tv6 wrote
Reply to Vaccine hesitancy is predictive of nocebo side-effects following COVID-19 vaccination by PHealthy
Abstract
The directionality between vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine side-effects has not been hitherto examined. We hypothesized a nocebo effect, whereby vaccine hesitancy towards the second Pfizer vaccination dose predicts subsequent side-effects for a booster dose, beyond other effects. We expected these nocebo effects to be driven by (mis)information in males and prior experience in females.
A representative sample of older adults (n = 756, mean age = 68.9 ± 3.43) were questioned in a typical cross-lagged design (wave 1 following a second Pfizer dose, wave 2 after their booster). As hypothesized, earlier vaccine hesitancy predicted subsequent booster side-effects for females (β = 0.10 p = 0.025, f 2 = 0.02) and males (β = 0.34, p < 0.001, f 2 = 0.16); effects were stronger in males (χ2Δ (1) = 4.34, p = 0.03). The (W1-to-W2) side-effect autoregression was stronger in females (β = .34, p < 0.001; males β = 0.18, p < 0.001), χ2Δ (1) = 26.86, p < 0.001.
Results show that a quantifiable and meaningful portion of COVID-19 vaccine side-effects is predicted by vaccine hesitancy, demonstrating that side-effects comprise a psychosomatic nocebo component in vaccinated individuals. The data reveal distinct risk levels for future side-effects, suggesting the need to tailor public health messaging.