Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Ongoing Popularity

Can being a creature of habit with your morning routine negatively affect you down the road?

The popularity of caffeinated drinks has been largely prevalent in the diet of the world population, especially of those individuals in the United States. The most common caffeinated beverage is coffee, prompting many scientific studies to be conducted regarding the analysis of habitual coffee consumption and risk of chronic disease. A variety of study types have been performed to determine the prevalence of such diet-related diseases in the population, allowing for recommendations to be made for the general public.

Just like any famous trend that typically gains a cult following, scientists are keen to analyze object of fascination from every angle possible. Studies examining the population, known as epidemiological studies, were conducted in order to accomplish this analysis by observing the relationship between habitual coffee consumption and three different outcomes of clinical interest: cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and death.

Don’t fret- we coffee lovers seem to be in the clear! Following these epidemiological studies, scientists have been able to infer that habitual coffee consumption may have a null (no effect) or even an inverse relationship with these diet-related outcomes.

Specific groups of the populace, called cohorts, were observed over a long time period to determine if they were susceptible to these diseases while partaking in coffee drinking behavior. As it turns out, a study involving individuals of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) portrayed that habitual coffee intake has a null association with cardiovascular disease (1). Furthermore, a study indicated that individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus who habitually drank coffee were actually inversely related to further chronic disease risk (2). Finally, an additional study concerning the HPFS and NHS participants determined that there appears to be a significant inverse relationship between the consumption of coffee and mortality across the board (3).

Research Funding Proposal

In order to achieve these substantial findings, organizations and individuals must request money to fund their efforts.

This request often comes in the form of a research funding proposal (RFP), which grants the researchers access to the funds necessary to accomplish their research goals once the proposal is approved.

The following scenario is how an individual could request money from an organization, like North Carolina State University, to examine the coffee/caffeine topic:

Objective: To assess the consumption of caffeine and coffee within a campus environment by using a cohort of college students over the course of an academic semester by submitting food diaries bi-weekly and meeting with a NCSU dietitian monthly.

Specific Aims:

• Conduct controlled interviews with a practicing dietitian to detail consumption habits in a professional environment.
• Observe how a college campus affects the behavior of students concerning caffeine/coffee intake habits.
• Simulate long-term consumption by obtaining food diaries biweekly over the course of the academic semester.

Methods:

• Baseline Questionnaire:
  • At the first interview with a dietitian from the NCSU Nutrition Department, the student participants would be required to complete a questionnaire concerning their caffeine/coffee consumption prior to the beginning of the study to serve as a baseline.
• Food Diaries:
  • During the interim between the meetings with the dietitian, the participants would be required to document their consumption patterns in the form of a food. These food diaries would require them to keep track of the frequency of consumption, serving/portion sizes, and method of preparation.
  • The food diaries are expected to be recorded biweekly for 3 days, which includes at least one day of the weekend.
• Dietitian Interviews:
  • The goal of having the dietitian present is to provide a professional-led setting in which the participants answer questionnaires and recount the food diaries.

Budget: $500 from the NC State’s Office of Undergraduate Research => $100 for each of the meetings.

Timeline:

• June-July: Conduct draft for North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board
• Late August-Early December: Food diary records kept biweekly for 3 days (including one day during the weekend)
• Mid December-Early January: Analyze consumption data of student participants up to this point.
• Mid January: One last interview with NCSU dietitian to determine if the winter break altered consumption habits.
• February: Finalize the organization and analysis of consumption data.

 

Method to the madness: All these components are necessary for researchers and organizations to receive funding for their studies and projects so that they can follow through with their objective of providing the public with information to benefit their lives.

References

1. Esther Lopez-Garcia, Rob M. van Dam, Walter C. Willett, Eric B. Rimm, et al. Coffee Consumption and Coronary Heart Disease in Men and Women. Circulation. 2006;113:2045-2053. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.598664
2. S. Bidel, G. Hu, Q. Qiao, P. Jousilahti, R. Antikainen, J. Tuomilehto. Coffee consumption and risk of total and cardiovascular mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia, 49 (11) (2006), pp. 2618-2626
3. Esther Lopez-Garcia, PhD; Rob M. van Dam, PhD; Tricia Y. Li, MD; Fernando Rodriguez-Artalejo, MD, PhD; Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD. The Relationship of Coffee Consumption with Mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):904-914. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-12-200806170-00003

Social Media at Every Turn

Get your discoveries out there!

With the various forms of social media sites at our disposal, there is a plethora of platforms for companies and organizations to share their discoveries among the general public at just the click of a finger!

 The Internet has provided the means for countless of individuals worldwide to gain access to any sort of information available, as well as connecting these individuals through avenues that would otherwise be impossible. Social media in particular utilizes simple, yet attention-grabbing, methods of delivering messages to viewers and consumers- a system that was virtually untapped until just the last decade. Due to this  innovative stream, scientific organizations are able to share their discoveries to new audiences outside of their unique field seamlessly and in just a few basic steps.

 Articles have been published by successful parties in order to aid these scientists in conveying their insights on particular matters. Courtesy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), here are some tips from their article “Communicating Science Online”:

• There has been a monumental shift of accessing information from by means of the television towards the Internet: publishers of scientific information should focus efforts onto the online avenue.
• Online formats prioritize methods:
  • Website: typically utilized as a credible source for the general populace to obtain information in thorough, in-depth manner.
  • Blog: communicates information concerning a particular range of topics in more of an informal manner.
  • Social Media: Facebook (FB) is best for self-branding purposes, while Twitter captivates a wider audience with real-time discussion.
• Implement strategies incorporating identity, conversations, sharing, relationships, and reputations.

Additionally, the Paw Research Center published a study involving 30 different scientific organizations/individuals to determined how their methods of sharing information fared online. The results of the study were detailed in their article “The Science People See on Social Media” and here are a few of the main takeaways:

• Average number of user interactions (likes, shares, comments) per post tends to be higher on Facebook-primary accounts than posts from multi-platform accounts.
  • More engagement for posts with more visuals and little info; calls to action
  • However, some science related accounts were more active on Twitter than FB
• Coverage of major scientific controversies were not mentioned/rare for FB pages => 8% of the 30 pages studied touched on environmental/energy issues
  • 1% mentioned genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
• The majority of posts among the 30 Facebook pages employ one of three frames: scientific discovery/development news, information concerning science “news you can use”, or a media program promotion.
• Video is a common feature on FB posts that grant high viewer interactions => due to explanation of content.
• Research-funding themed posts were incredibly interactive with users: 122,126 average => 3x more than next highest category
  • Instigated by Trump’s 2017 proposed budget, potential changes for science funding

For example, here is how the American Public Health Association (APHA) applies its social media to broadcast information:

• Social media followers: Facebook (100,680); Twitter (476,000)
• Account creation: Facebook (July 2009); Twitter (June 2007)
• Media Management: Megan Lowry (Media Relations)
• Based on the 3 frames presented in the Paw Research Center Study, the APHA social media sites tend to share promotional posts concerning their own events, like conferences and notable speakers. Additionally, the “news you can use” posts are present as well, sharing information from other sources or self-published related to upcoming events- supplemental articles in a manner.
  • Similar to the observations in the study, the “news you can use” posts receive the most viewer interactions.
• These sites are pretty standard for a major association, nothing too innovative. However, a healthy variety exists in the formatting of the post; such as a mixture of large trendy pictures, links, event photos, and text one after another.
  • One thing that would aid the site would be to add post containing videos in order to delve further into detail without wasting screen space.

Hopefully these tid-bits of information will aid scientists, present and future, in tailoring their scientific achievements towards the enjoyment of the general public!