Diverging paths: Modeling the relation between adverse effects, attitudes, perceived adherence, and treatment effect in an internet-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Background And Aim: The efficacy of internet-based interventions (IBI) for various psychiatric disorders is widely established, but little is known about the mechanisms or possible influencing factors. One of the most prominent problems in IBI is low adherence, but the relationship between adherence and level of improvement is still unclear. Patients' attitudes and beliefs about IBI as well as the experience of adverse effects-another widely neglected topic-may also influence the effectiveness of these interventions.

Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Background: Health literacy can be defined as a person's knowledge, motivation and competence in four steps of health-related information processing - accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information. Individuals with experience of migration may encounter difficulties with or barriers to these steps that may, in turn, lead to poorer health outcomes than those of the general population. Moreover, women and men have different health challenges and needs and may respond differently to interventions aimed at improving health literacy.

Evidence brief on facilitators, barriers and hesitancy of COVID-19 booster doses in Canada.

Background: Understanding the facilitators, barriers and hesitancy to accepting COVID-19 booster doses is important for encouraging recommended vaccination. This evidence brief summarizes literature on the intention to accept or reject COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and the factors associated with intention/uptake among individuals in Canada.

Methods: A database of COVID-19 literature established at the Public Health Agency of Canada was searched for articles referencing vaccination and knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards COVID-19 boosters.

An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency.

Background: Preprints are scientific articles that have not undergone the peer-review process. They allow the latest evidence to be rapidly shared, however it is unclear whether they can be confidently used for decision-making during a public health emergency. This study aimed to compare the data and quality of preprints released during the first four months of the 2022 mpox outbreak to their published versions.