Food allergies for children in American seem to be steadily on the rise, now affecting approximately 3 million kids. Experts say that this might be because parents are more aware and have their children checked out earlier and quicker by their physician.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 1 in 26 children were diagnosed with food allergies last year. The figure is up from 1 in 29 in the year 1997. This 18 percent increase in more than enough to be considered greater than a statistical blip, according to the study’s lead author, Amy Branum of the CDC.
However, no one really knows what is driving this increase. Some experts say that the doubling of peanut allergies, which as been noted in previous studies, is considered one factor. Also, children seem to taking longer to outgrow allergies to eggs and milk than they did in the past. But they are also figuring doctors and parents into the equation who are more likely to consider food as the trigger for such allergy symptoms as breathing problems, vomiting, and skin rashes.
Anne Munoz-Furlong, which is the chief executive of the advocacy organization Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network stated, “A couple of decades ago, it was not uncommon to have kids sick all the time and we just said ‘They have a weak stomach’ or ‘They’re sickly’.”
The CDC results came from an in-person, survey in 2007 that went door-to-door of the households of 9,500 U.S. children under the age of 18. When the researchers asked if a child in the house had any kind of allergies to food in the previous 12 months, approximately 4 percent said yes. The parents were not asked if a physician was the one who made the diagnosis, and none of their medical records were checked. Some of the parents may not know the difference between digestive disorders such as being lactose intolerant and immune system-based food allergies, so it is possible that the findings of this study are a bit off.
Dr. Hugh Sampson, a food allergy researcher for the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, says that the results of this study mirror previous national estimates that were extrapolated from smaller, more intensive studies. “This tells us those earlier extrapolations were fairly close.”
However, the CDC study did not give us a breakdown of which foods were to blame for the allergy problems. Other research conducted suggests that approximately 1 in 40 Americans will have an allergy to milk at some point in their lives, and approximately 1 in 50 percent will be allergic to eggs. Most people will more than likely outgrow these allergies in adulthood.
According to Sampson, about 1 in 50 are allergic to shellfish and almost 1 in 100 are allergic to peanuts that generally persist for their whole life. He explained that some people will have allergies to more than one food and this is why the overall food allergy prevalence is about 4 percent.
The study also shows that children that suffer from food allergies tend to be more likely to have respiratory problems, asthma, and eczema than kids that do no have allergies to food, confirming previous research. In addition, the number of children that had to be hospitalized for food allergies is on the rise. The number of hospital discharges for food allergies, jumped from 2,600 annually in the late 1990s to more than 9,500 annually for recent years.
In a first for a national study of this type, is the ethnic/racial breakdown, which showed Hispanic children to have lower rates of food allergies than black or white children. Munoz-Furlong stated that the reason for the last finding may not be genetics. She is Hispanic herself and said that people in her own family have been unwilling to consider that food allergies could be the reason for children’s illnesses. She said, “It’s a question of awareness.”
Showing posts with label child health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child health. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
How Stress Affects Academic Performance
In the hustle and bustle of the modern world, stress is unavoidable. Everyone—adults, teens and even kids—experience it at times and in different ways. Just enough stress can keep you on your toes, ready to rise to a challenge. But too much stress can have debilitating effects on our health, contributing to and agitating many problems including heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, depression and sleep disorders. Now researchers have found a clear connection between student stress and academic success.
In the first study of its kind, researchers at the University of Minnesota’s Boynton Health Service surveyed 9,931 students at 14 different two- and four-year schools. Then they matched grade point averages with health problems such as stress, smoking and drinking as well as typical lifestyle choices such as gambling and excessive screen time. They found that students with unhealthy behaviors had significantly lower GPAs.
Stress was one of the biggest factors. Of the 69.9 percent of students who reported they were stressed, 32.9 percent said that stress was hurting their academic performance. In fact, those who reported eight or more emotional stresses—ranging from credit card debt to failing a class or conflicts with parents—had an average GPA of 2.72 while those who reported no significant stress had an average GPA of 3.3. “While this may seem like a small difference in GPA, when you are looking at over 9,000 students the impact of this difference is huge,” said Dr. Ed Ehlinger, director of Boynton Health Services and a lead author of the study.
However, the study found that the ability to manage stress was equally important. Students who said they were able to handle their stress effectively performed much better than those who said they couldn’t. This is an important finding, because it can persuade colleges to provide students with the resources they need to learn how to manage stress, Dr. Ehlinger said. “If students can manage their stress, then their stress level will not matter.”
Twenty percent of the students reported having sleep difficulties that impacted their academics. Students reporting sleep deficiencies had an average GPA of 3.08 compared with 3.27 for those who got enough sleep. “The more days a student gets adequate sleep, the better GPA’s they attain,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “There is a direct link between the two.”
The study showed that excessive television and computer use (not including academic use) also cut significantly into grades. Students who didn’t watch any television during the day had an average GPA of 3.37, while the GPA of those with two hours of TV per day dropped to 3.21. And students with four or more hours of screen time per day had an average GPA of 3.04 or less. Students who played less than one hour of computer or video games per day had a GPA of 3.31, while those who played games for more than five hours had a GPA of 2.98. Dr. Ehlinger pointed out that previous studies showed that students who spend excessive time on the computer, watching television or playing video games were more likely to engage in other unhealthful habits such as eating fast food. “Screen time had a huge impact on grade-point average,” he said. “We knew it had an impact, but not that big.”
The same pattern was seen with binge drinking, drugs and smoking. Students who reported issues with alcohol had an average GPA of 2.92, compared with 3.28 for students who did not. The drug use gap was 2.94 versus 3.25. And students who reported smoking within the past 30 days had an average GPA of 3.12 compared with 3.28 for those who reported not smoking. “Even students who smoked once or twice in a month had lower GPA’s than those who didn’t smoke,” said Dr. Ehlinger. “Using tobacco to calm down or ‘to be social’ is lowing students’ grades.”
Dr. Ehlinger said that while most of the results were expected, there were some surprises, especially how resilient young adults can be. Students who reported having been sexually or physically abused at some point in their lives had no significant differences in their GPA compared with other students. However, those who reported being sexually assaulted or abused within the previous 12 months did report lower grades. This shows that with time, young adults can overcome such trauma, at least as far as their grades are concerned, he said.
Another surprise was that working to earn money had no effect on grades. That was true regardless of whether students spent one or 40 hours a week at work. “The conventional wisdom is that the more you worked, the more stress is placed on your academics,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “There must be something else going on that is protective of folks that are working. It might be a matter of time management.”
Dr. Ehlinger said he hopes this survey will encourage college students to change behavior and for colleges to pay more attention to the health of their students. “We hope this information helps students make wise decisions,” he said. “If you’re investing a lot of time and money in your education, do you really want to waste your investment on behaviors that interfere with your academic success?” He is also hopeful it will help convince the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system to require students to have health insurance. The University of Minnesota already requires insurance. “If we can get students insured that might help them do better in school,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “(Having) no insurance will stop you from getting preventative treatment and using health services. All of those things lead you to not deal with the issues that could affect your academic career.”
“College students are so important for our economic development—the development of our society,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “One way to protect that investment in our future is to help them stay healthy.”
In the first study of its kind, researchers at the University of Minnesota’s Boynton Health Service surveyed 9,931 students at 14 different two- and four-year schools. Then they matched grade point averages with health problems such as stress, smoking and drinking as well as typical lifestyle choices such as gambling and excessive screen time. They found that students with unhealthy behaviors had significantly lower GPAs.
Stress was one of the biggest factors. Of the 69.9 percent of students who reported they were stressed, 32.9 percent said that stress was hurting their academic performance. In fact, those who reported eight or more emotional stresses—ranging from credit card debt to failing a class or conflicts with parents—had an average GPA of 2.72 while those who reported no significant stress had an average GPA of 3.3. “While this may seem like a small difference in GPA, when you are looking at over 9,000 students the impact of this difference is huge,” said Dr. Ed Ehlinger, director of Boynton Health Services and a lead author of the study.
However, the study found that the ability to manage stress was equally important. Students who said they were able to handle their stress effectively performed much better than those who said they couldn’t. This is an important finding, because it can persuade colleges to provide students with the resources they need to learn how to manage stress, Dr. Ehlinger said. “If students can manage their stress, then their stress level will not matter.”
Twenty percent of the students reported having sleep difficulties that impacted their academics. Students reporting sleep deficiencies had an average GPA of 3.08 compared with 3.27 for those who got enough sleep. “The more days a student gets adequate sleep, the better GPA’s they attain,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “There is a direct link between the two.”
The study showed that excessive television and computer use (not including academic use) also cut significantly into grades. Students who didn’t watch any television during the day had an average GPA of 3.37, while the GPA of those with two hours of TV per day dropped to 3.21. And students with four or more hours of screen time per day had an average GPA of 3.04 or less. Students who played less than one hour of computer or video games per day had a GPA of 3.31, while those who played games for more than five hours had a GPA of 2.98. Dr. Ehlinger pointed out that previous studies showed that students who spend excessive time on the computer, watching television or playing video games were more likely to engage in other unhealthful habits such as eating fast food. “Screen time had a huge impact on grade-point average,” he said. “We knew it had an impact, but not that big.”
The same pattern was seen with binge drinking, drugs and smoking. Students who reported issues with alcohol had an average GPA of 2.92, compared with 3.28 for students who did not. The drug use gap was 2.94 versus 3.25. And students who reported smoking within the past 30 days had an average GPA of 3.12 compared with 3.28 for those who reported not smoking. “Even students who smoked once or twice in a month had lower GPA’s than those who didn’t smoke,” said Dr. Ehlinger. “Using tobacco to calm down or ‘to be social’ is lowing students’ grades.”
Dr. Ehlinger said that while most of the results were expected, there were some surprises, especially how resilient young adults can be. Students who reported having been sexually or physically abused at some point in their lives had no significant differences in their GPA compared with other students. However, those who reported being sexually assaulted or abused within the previous 12 months did report lower grades. This shows that with time, young adults can overcome such trauma, at least as far as their grades are concerned, he said.
Another surprise was that working to earn money had no effect on grades. That was true regardless of whether students spent one or 40 hours a week at work. “The conventional wisdom is that the more you worked, the more stress is placed on your academics,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “There must be something else going on that is protective of folks that are working. It might be a matter of time management.”
Dr. Ehlinger said he hopes this survey will encourage college students to change behavior and for colleges to pay more attention to the health of their students. “We hope this information helps students make wise decisions,” he said. “If you’re investing a lot of time and money in your education, do you really want to waste your investment on behaviors that interfere with your academic success?” He is also hopeful it will help convince the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system to require students to have health insurance. The University of Minnesota already requires insurance. “If we can get students insured that might help them do better in school,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “(Having) no insurance will stop you from getting preventative treatment and using health services. All of those things lead you to not deal with the issues that could affect your academic career.”
“College students are so important for our economic development—the development of our society,” Dr. Ehlinger said. “One way to protect that investment in our future is to help them stay healthy.”
Parents Not Recognizing Children's Weight Issues
Over 40 percent of parents of both underweight and overweight children are misguided in their belief that their children are within the average weight range. In what is becoming a common problem—the misconception about a child's real weight—parents allow unhealthy habits to continue, which can lead to life-long issues.
Research conducted at the University of Melbourne in Australia found that 4 in 10 parents mis-identified their child's body size, and that various methods in assessing the weight of children, such as the Body Mass Index (BMI) or waist circumference (WC), results in different standards for recognizing children as being either overweight or underweight. With the use of BMI, which estimates the percentage of body fat by comparing a person’s height and weight in a statistical formula, more children were categorized as being overweight than when using the WC method, which generally deems a waistline of 18.5 to 24.9 inches as normal.
Doctoral researcher Dr. Pene Schmidt conducted the study which also showed that children not falling within the average weight range are more likely to over or underestimate their body size and that even a few parents believe their underweight children are overweight or that their overweight children are underweight. Dr. Schmidt acknowledges that the results of the research suggest a need to revamp the methods by which the weight of children is classified and offer better information to parents about appropriate weight at both ends of the tape measure. She stated, “Parents are unlikely to take the necessary preventative actions if the perception of their child’s weight, whether underweight or overweight, is incorrect.”
The study was conducted in the University of Melbourne’s School of Behavioral Science and data used for the analysis came from a survey of over 2,100 children, ages 4 to 12, as well as their parents. Previous research has only examined the perceptions of parents of overweight children whereas Dr. Schmidt’s study is the first to examine parental perceptions of underweight children as well when using both BMI and WC.
The outcome was that 43 percent of parents of underweight children considered their children to be an average weight and that 49 percent of parents of overweight children believed their children to be an average weight. Over 80 percent of parents were correct in identifying average weight children as being average weight. Additionally, 1.4 percent of parents felt that their underweight children were overweight and 2.5 percent correctly identified their overweight children as overweight.
Interestingly, parents were found to be more likely to report their sons as underweight and their daughters as overweight. Parents of girls were less likely to accurately identify that their child was underweight while parents of boys were less likely to accurately identify their child as being overweight. In fact, only 4 out of 10 parents of underweight girls and half of underweight boys correctly assessed their weight. Double the number of parents were concerned about their overweight children compared to those concerned about underweight children.
Dr. Schmidt says the study showed that parents and children were both struggling to determine whether or not they were the correct weight. The results of the analysis have concluded that there is need for more research to determine how to best define children’s weight status as well as how to communicate the information to children and parents.
Research conducted at the University of Melbourne in Australia found that 4 in 10 parents mis-identified their child's body size, and that various methods in assessing the weight of children, such as the Body Mass Index (BMI) or waist circumference (WC), results in different standards for recognizing children as being either overweight or underweight. With the use of BMI, which estimates the percentage of body fat by comparing a person’s height and weight in a statistical formula, more children were categorized as being overweight than when using the WC method, which generally deems a waistline of 18.5 to 24.9 inches as normal.
Doctoral researcher Dr. Pene Schmidt conducted the study which also showed that children not falling within the average weight range are more likely to over or underestimate their body size and that even a few parents believe their underweight children are overweight or that their overweight children are underweight. Dr. Schmidt acknowledges that the results of the research suggest a need to revamp the methods by which the weight of children is classified and offer better information to parents about appropriate weight at both ends of the tape measure. She stated, “Parents are unlikely to take the necessary preventative actions if the perception of their child’s weight, whether underweight or overweight, is incorrect.”
The study was conducted in the University of Melbourne’s School of Behavioral Science and data used for the analysis came from a survey of over 2,100 children, ages 4 to 12, as well as their parents. Previous research has only examined the perceptions of parents of overweight children whereas Dr. Schmidt’s study is the first to examine parental perceptions of underweight children as well when using both BMI and WC.
The outcome was that 43 percent of parents of underweight children considered their children to be an average weight and that 49 percent of parents of overweight children believed their children to be an average weight. Over 80 percent of parents were correct in identifying average weight children as being average weight. Additionally, 1.4 percent of parents felt that their underweight children were overweight and 2.5 percent correctly identified their overweight children as overweight.
Interestingly, parents were found to be more likely to report their sons as underweight and their daughters as overweight. Parents of girls were less likely to accurately identify that their child was underweight while parents of boys were less likely to accurately identify their child as being overweight. In fact, only 4 out of 10 parents of underweight girls and half of underweight boys correctly assessed their weight. Double the number of parents were concerned about their overweight children compared to those concerned about underweight children.
Dr. Schmidt says the study showed that parents and children were both struggling to determine whether or not they were the correct weight. The results of the analysis have concluded that there is need for more research to determine how to best define children’s weight status as well as how to communicate the information to children and parents.
Infant Mortality: How Does The U.S. Compare With Other Countries?
Infant mortality is one comparative measure of national health, widely used because of the scarcity of other standardized health data in much of the world. In the United States, the infant mortality rate (IMF) has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000, which looks great on the surface. However, when you compare U.S. infant mortality to that of other developed countries, a different picture emerges. While other countries have improved their international standing in infant mortality, the United States has worsened, going from 12th in 1960 to 29th in 2004, according to a new report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.
In comparison, the lowest infant death rates were in Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Sweden, Norway and Finland, all of which were below 3.5 per 1,000, about half the U.S. rate. There were also 22 countries with infant death rates below 5.0 per 1,000. According to the CDC researchers, while there are some differences in the way countries collect these data; those differences cannot explain the relatively low international ranking of the United States.
The decline has been attributed in part to an increase in preterm births and preterm-related deaths. From 2000 to 2005, the rate of babies born prematurely rose from 11.6 percent to 12.7 percent. And, in 2005, 36.5 percent of infant deaths in the United States were due to preterm-related causes of death, a 5 percent increase since 2000. The impact of preterm-related causes of death was even higher for non-Hispanic black and Puerto Rican women. The rise in preterm births is partially driven by an increase in multiple births resulting from artificial reproductive technologies and in the use of Caesarean delivery or induced labor for mothers with serious medical conditions, according to Dr. Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, one of the study authors.
Disparities that exist among various racial and ethnic groups in the country also have an impact on infant mortality. In 2005, the infant mortality rate among non-Hispanic black Americans was 2.4 times greater than the rate for non-Hispanic white Americans—13.63 per 1,000 live births compared to 5.76 per 1,000. Infant death rates were also higher among Puerto Rican women and American Indian women—8.30 per 1,000 and 8.06 per 1,000 respectively. Cuban women had the lowest rates—4.42 deaths per 1,000 live births—and were the only ethnic group that met the government’s Healthy People 2010 target of fewer than 4.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
The findings are published in the CDC’s October 2008 National Center for Health Statistics data brief, “Recent Trends in Infant Mortality in the United States.” The data come from the Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set and Preliminary Mortality Data File, collected through the National Vital Statistics System. You can access the full report at www.cdc.gov/nchs.
In comparison, the lowest infant death rates were in Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Sweden, Norway and Finland, all of which were below 3.5 per 1,000, about half the U.S. rate. There were also 22 countries with infant death rates below 5.0 per 1,000. According to the CDC researchers, while there are some differences in the way countries collect these data; those differences cannot explain the relatively low international ranking of the United States.
The decline has been attributed in part to an increase in preterm births and preterm-related deaths. From 2000 to 2005, the rate of babies born prematurely rose from 11.6 percent to 12.7 percent. And, in 2005, 36.5 percent of infant deaths in the United States were due to preterm-related causes of death, a 5 percent increase since 2000. The impact of preterm-related causes of death was even higher for non-Hispanic black and Puerto Rican women. The rise in preterm births is partially driven by an increase in multiple births resulting from artificial reproductive technologies and in the use of Caesarean delivery or induced labor for mothers with serious medical conditions, according to Dr. Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, one of the study authors.
Disparities that exist among various racial and ethnic groups in the country also have an impact on infant mortality. In 2005, the infant mortality rate among non-Hispanic black Americans was 2.4 times greater than the rate for non-Hispanic white Americans—13.63 per 1,000 live births compared to 5.76 per 1,000. Infant death rates were also higher among Puerto Rican women and American Indian women—8.30 per 1,000 and 8.06 per 1,000 respectively. Cuban women had the lowest rates—4.42 deaths per 1,000 live births—and were the only ethnic group that met the government’s Healthy People 2010 target of fewer than 4.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
The findings are published in the CDC’s October 2008 National Center for Health Statistics data brief, “Recent Trends in Infant Mortality in the United States.” The data come from the Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set and Preliminary Mortality Data File, collected through the National Vital Statistics System. You can access the full report at www.cdc.gov/nchs.
Doubling Vitamin D for Children Could Prevent Serious Diseases
The nation’s leading group of pediatricians says that children—newborns to teens—should get double the amount of vitamin D that is usually recommended to help prevent serious diseases. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said that to meet the new recommendation of 400 units daily, millions of children will need to take supplements of vitamin D every day. This also includes infants who are being breastfed, infants who are using certain formulas, and teens that drink little or no milk at all.
Breast milk, recommended for at least the first year of life, can be deficient in vitamin D, so supplementation would be recommended. Most infant formulas currently contain the higher dose of vitamin D and will not need additional supplements.
The most commercially available milk is fortified with vitamin D, but most children and teens today do not drink enough of it. To meet the new requirements Dr. Frank Greer, the report’s co-author, stated that four cups of milk a day would be needed.
Recent studies conducted have shown that many children do not get enough of vitamin D, and cases of rickets, which is a bone disorder that is often associated with malnourishment in the 1800s, continue to happen. This new advice by the AAP is based on mounting research that is about the potential benefits from vitamin D besides keeping our bones strong, which includes suggestions that it could reduce risks for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. However, the evidence isn’t conclusive and there is no consensus on how much of the vitamin D would be need to prevent these diseases. This new advice is replacing a 2003 Academy recommendation for 200 units per day.
The previous amount of 200 units was the government’s recommendation for children and adults up to age 50. The amount of 400 units a day is recommended for adult’s age’s 51 to 70 and 600 units is recommended for people age 71 and up. Vitamin D is usually purchased in drops for young children and capsules and tablets for everyone else.
The Institute of Medicine, which is a government advisory group that sets the dietary standards, is currently discussing with federal agencies whether those recommended amounts should be changed based on the emerging research. The new recommendations were prepared for release on Monday at an academy conference in Boston. They are going to be published in the November issue of the Academy’s journal called Pediatrics.
In addition to milk and some other fortified foods such as cereal, vitamin D can be found in oily fish, which includes mackerel, sardines, and tuna. However, it is very hard to get enough through diet alone. The best source of vitamin D is found in sunlight because the body makes vitamin D when the sunshine hits the skin.
While it is believed that 10 to 15 minutes in the sun a few times a week without any sunscreen is sufficient for most, people that have dark skin and those that live in northern, less sunny climates will need more. Because of the link between sunlight and skin cancer, the academy’s report says, “vitamin D supplements during infancy, childhood and adolescence are necessary.”
Greer, a pediatrician at the University of Wisconsin, acknowledged that most of the studies suggesting vitamin D may play a much broader role in prevention of disease have been observational, not the most rigorous kind of medical evidence. Nonetheless, many doctors are considering this research to be compelling and may have begun to offer patients routine testing for vitamin D.
A vitamin D researcher at Oregon State University, Adrian Gombart, stated that the new recommendations are conservative and safe but that 400 units daily “is probably not enough.” Gombart’s research with human tissue has shown that vitamin D helps to increase levels of protein that kills bacteria. He said that many experts believe that between 800 and 1,000 units of vitamin D a day would be more effective at helping fight disease.
Breast milk, recommended for at least the first year of life, can be deficient in vitamin D, so supplementation would be recommended. Most infant formulas currently contain the higher dose of vitamin D and will not need additional supplements.
The most commercially available milk is fortified with vitamin D, but most children and teens today do not drink enough of it. To meet the new requirements Dr. Frank Greer, the report’s co-author, stated that four cups of milk a day would be needed.
Recent studies conducted have shown that many children do not get enough of vitamin D, and cases of rickets, which is a bone disorder that is often associated with malnourishment in the 1800s, continue to happen. This new advice by the AAP is based on mounting research that is about the potential benefits from vitamin D besides keeping our bones strong, which includes suggestions that it could reduce risks for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. However, the evidence isn’t conclusive and there is no consensus on how much of the vitamin D would be need to prevent these diseases. This new advice is replacing a 2003 Academy recommendation for 200 units per day.
The previous amount of 200 units was the government’s recommendation for children and adults up to age 50. The amount of 400 units a day is recommended for adult’s age’s 51 to 70 and 600 units is recommended for people age 71 and up. Vitamin D is usually purchased in drops for young children and capsules and tablets for everyone else.
The Institute of Medicine, which is a government advisory group that sets the dietary standards, is currently discussing with federal agencies whether those recommended amounts should be changed based on the emerging research. The new recommendations were prepared for release on Monday at an academy conference in Boston. They are going to be published in the November issue of the Academy’s journal called Pediatrics.
In addition to milk and some other fortified foods such as cereal, vitamin D can be found in oily fish, which includes mackerel, sardines, and tuna. However, it is very hard to get enough through diet alone. The best source of vitamin D is found in sunlight because the body makes vitamin D when the sunshine hits the skin.
While it is believed that 10 to 15 minutes in the sun a few times a week without any sunscreen is sufficient for most, people that have dark skin and those that live in northern, less sunny climates will need more. Because of the link between sunlight and skin cancer, the academy’s report says, “vitamin D supplements during infancy, childhood and adolescence are necessary.”
Greer, a pediatrician at the University of Wisconsin, acknowledged that most of the studies suggesting vitamin D may play a much broader role in prevention of disease have been observational, not the most rigorous kind of medical evidence. Nonetheless, many doctors are considering this research to be compelling and may have begun to offer patients routine testing for vitamin D.
A vitamin D researcher at Oregon State University, Adrian Gombart, stated that the new recommendations are conservative and safe but that 400 units daily “is probably not enough.” Gombart’s research with human tissue has shown that vitamin D helps to increase levels of protein that kills bacteria. He said that many experts believe that between 800 and 1,000 units of vitamin D a day would be more effective at helping fight disease.
Parents’ Income and Education Influence Children’s Health
Every parent wants their children to live long, healthy lives. But a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America says that health, as a child and then as an adult, may largely depend on where the children live, their family income and the amount of education their parents have. In fact, parents’ income and education are so linked to their children’s health that there’s even a significant difference between the health of middle-class children and that of children with the greatest advantages. “This report shows us just how much a child’s health is shaped by the environment in which he or she lives,” commission Co-Chairwoman Alice M. Rivlin said in a statement.
According to the report, 15.9 percent of American children ages 17 years or younger had less than optimal health during 2003. This rate varied widely across states from a high of 22.8 percent in Texas to a low of 6.9 percent in Vermont. However, both nationally and within states, these rates also varied dramatically by income. Children in poor families are more likely—over six times as likely, in some states—to be in less than optimal health, compared with higher-income children. For example, in Texas, 44 percent of children in poor families are in less than optimal health compared with 6.7 percent of children in higher-income families. Other states with wide gaps in health between children from high- or low-income families are Nevada, Arizona, Louisiana, Washington, D.C., and Mississippi.
In contrast, only 13 percent of low-income children in New Hampshire have less than optimal health, compared with 6.4 percent of children in higher-income families. After New Hampshire, the states with the smallest gaps in health between children from high- or low-income families are Virginia, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wyoming.
However, these differences were not confined to comparisons between the top and bottom groups. Aside from a few exceptions, children in middle-income families are also more likely—over twice as likely in some states—than children in higher-income families to be in less than optimal health. “Children in poor and less-educated families generally have the worst health, but even children in middle-class families fare worse than those at the top,” noted Dr. Paula Braveman, one of the authors of the report.
A mother’s education is also an influencing factor in children’s health. After correlating mortality rates to how many years of schooling the mother completed, the report found that babies born to mothers who have at least 16 years of education are less likely to die before reaching their first birthday than babies born to mothers who did not finish high school. One of the largest gaps in infant mortality based on years of schooling was in Tennessee where the infant mortality rate for mothers with less than a high school education was 11.7 deaths per 1,000 infants; a rate that fell to 4.9 deaths for mothers who had at least a bachelor’s degree. Despite this, infant mortality rates in almost every state exceed what ideally could be achieved—a national benchmark rate of only 3.2 deaths per 1,000, said Sue Egerter, co-director of the University of California, San Francisco, Center on Social Disparities in Health, and another of the report’s authors.
A parents’ education also influences a child’s health in later years. Children who grow up in homes without a high school graduate are more than four times as likely to be in less than optimal health as children in a home with a high school graduate, and four times as likely to be in suboptimal health as a child in a home with someone who has been to college.
Egerter says that improving children’s health across the U.S. means not only improving access to health care, but improving the conditions in which many children are raised. “We need to change the conversation about health in this country,” she said. “We need solutions beyond the medical care system to improve the health of children in this country. Children need the right physical and social conditions to help them be healthy kids who develop into healthy adults. Focusing on health care and coverage is important, but we need to recognize that there is more to health than health care.”
“This report shows how much healthier kids in each state could be if we narrow the gap between the children of the wealthiest, most educated families and everyone else,” said Dr. Braveman. “Child health is a foundation for his or hers health throughout life. So, the health of our children is not only an important concern in itself, it’s a very important indicator of the health of the nation.”
To view the report America’s Health Starts With Healthy Children: How Do States Compare? in its entirety or to see how your state faired, visit http://www.commissiononhealth.org/StateByStateData.aspx.
According to the report, 15.9 percent of American children ages 17 years or younger had less than optimal health during 2003. This rate varied widely across states from a high of 22.8 percent in Texas to a low of 6.9 percent in Vermont. However, both nationally and within states, these rates also varied dramatically by income. Children in poor families are more likely—over six times as likely, in some states—to be in less than optimal health, compared with higher-income children. For example, in Texas, 44 percent of children in poor families are in less than optimal health compared with 6.7 percent of children in higher-income families. Other states with wide gaps in health between children from high- or low-income families are Nevada, Arizona, Louisiana, Washington, D.C., and Mississippi.
In contrast, only 13 percent of low-income children in New Hampshire have less than optimal health, compared with 6.4 percent of children in higher-income families. After New Hampshire, the states with the smallest gaps in health between children from high- or low-income families are Virginia, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wyoming.
However, these differences were not confined to comparisons between the top and bottom groups. Aside from a few exceptions, children in middle-income families are also more likely—over twice as likely in some states—than children in higher-income families to be in less than optimal health. “Children in poor and less-educated families generally have the worst health, but even children in middle-class families fare worse than those at the top,” noted Dr. Paula Braveman, one of the authors of the report.
A mother’s education is also an influencing factor in children’s health. After correlating mortality rates to how many years of schooling the mother completed, the report found that babies born to mothers who have at least 16 years of education are less likely to die before reaching their first birthday than babies born to mothers who did not finish high school. One of the largest gaps in infant mortality based on years of schooling was in Tennessee where the infant mortality rate for mothers with less than a high school education was 11.7 deaths per 1,000 infants; a rate that fell to 4.9 deaths for mothers who had at least a bachelor’s degree. Despite this, infant mortality rates in almost every state exceed what ideally could be achieved—a national benchmark rate of only 3.2 deaths per 1,000, said Sue Egerter, co-director of the University of California, San Francisco, Center on Social Disparities in Health, and another of the report’s authors.
A parents’ education also influences a child’s health in later years. Children who grow up in homes without a high school graduate are more than four times as likely to be in less than optimal health as children in a home with a high school graduate, and four times as likely to be in suboptimal health as a child in a home with someone who has been to college.
Egerter says that improving children’s health across the U.S. means not only improving access to health care, but improving the conditions in which many children are raised. “We need to change the conversation about health in this country,” she said. “We need solutions beyond the medical care system to improve the health of children in this country. Children need the right physical and social conditions to help them be healthy kids who develop into healthy adults. Focusing on health care and coverage is important, but we need to recognize that there is more to health than health care.”
“This report shows how much healthier kids in each state could be if we narrow the gap between the children of the wealthiest, most educated families and everyone else,” said Dr. Braveman. “Child health is a foundation for his or hers health throughout life. So, the health of our children is not only an important concern in itself, it’s a very important indicator of the health of the nation.”
To view the report America’s Health Starts With Healthy Children: How Do States Compare? in its entirety or to see how your state faired, visit http://www.commissiononhealth.org/StateByStateData.aspx.
Simple Air Circulation Could Help to Prevent SIDS
When preparing the nursery for your new arrival, adding a fan to the list of necessities may be beneficial. A fan could help to prevent Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), the number one killer of infants from one month to one year old. When placing a box fan in both of my boy’s rooms, to help drown out background noise, I didn’t realize I was helping to prevent SIDS, but thank goodness, it may have aided in the prevention of the very scary infant killer.
Researchers with Kaiser Permanente in California recently reported on their study, which involved interviews with mothers of 185 babies who died from SIDS, and 312 other infants, from 11 counties around California. According to the study, recently published in the latest issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, babies who slept with a fan in their room reduced their chances of dying from SIDS by 72 percent. Researchers feel fans may help to circulate fresh air and prevent babies from suffocating by re-breathing exhaled carbon dioxide, one of the culprits many doctors feel causes SIDS. The fans seemed to provide greater protection for babies who slept in warmer environments, over 69 degrees. Opening a window and allowing fresh air to circulate around a baby’s room may also help to prevent SIDS, but it could be just coincidence, according to the study.
Since the early 1990s, infant deaths from SIDS have been cut in half, mostly due to the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations of babies being placed to sleep on their backs rather than their bellies, a firm mattress be used, and to avoid loose bedding in a babies crib. For many years, parents were told to place their babies to sleep on their tummies, but after extensive monitoring and research, doctors and researchers feel it is better to place babies to sleep on their backs, which helps prevent babies from suffocating with their faces being pressed into the mattress. Pacifiers also seem to aid in preventing SIDS, due to the handle keeping infants faces from pressing against their mattress.
Dr. De-Kun Li, the lead researcher of the study and a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist with Kaiser Permanente's research division, explained that young babies have weak neck muscles, which limits their ability to turn their heads and sometimes may prevent them from breathing fresh air. Even though the key step in preventing SIDS is still placing a baby on their back to sleep, extra steps such as using a fan in a baby’s room to prevent SIDS, and several other steps should be followed. .
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has several guidelines for preventing SIDS deaths. However, there are still 2,500 SIDS deaths annually, possibly due to parents not following guidelines that have been issued by the AAP. In fact, according to Pediatrics October issue, around 25 percent of babies are still being placed to sleep on their tummies and 34 percent of babies are sleeping with their parents regularly, which is not recommended by the AAP. Another study involving childcare facilities, showed back sleeping was only being implemented a little over 50% of the time. The number increased to 62 percent following education of parents and child-care facilities. Placing a baby to sleep on their backs seems such a simple task to help prevent a baby’s death, but there is still a large part of the population unaware of the risks involved with tummy sleeping. More education is needed for child-care providers and parents.
The AAP has made several recommendations for preventing SIDS. They are listed below and further information in regards to SIDS prevention can be found on their website at www.healthychildcare.org.Healthy babies should always sleep on their backs. Side sleeping is not as safe as back sleeping and is not advised.Get a physician's note for non-back sleepers that explains why the baby should not use a back-sleeping position.Use safety-approved cribs and firm mattresses (cradles and bassinets may provide safe sleeping enclosures, but safety standards have not been established for these items).Keep cribs free of toys, stuffed animals, and extra bedding.Place the child's feet to the foot of the crib and tuck in a light blanket along the sides and foot of the mattress. The blanket should not come up higher than the infant's chest. Another option is to use sleep clothing and nothing else in the infant's crib.Keep the room at a temperature that is comfortable for a lightly clothed adult.Visually check on sleeping babies often.No smoking around babies. Make sure babies are being watched when you go outside to smoke. Child care providers who smoke should do so outside, with an overcoat on. The overcoat will be removed when they return to work. Never allow smoking in a room where babies sleep, as exposure to smoke in a room where babies sleep, as exposure to smoke is linked to an increased risk of SIDS.Have supervised "tummy time" for awake babies. This will help babies strengthen their muscles and develop normally.Sleep only 1 baby per crib.
Researchers with Kaiser Permanente in California recently reported on their study, which involved interviews with mothers of 185 babies who died from SIDS, and 312 other infants, from 11 counties around California. According to the study, recently published in the latest issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, babies who slept with a fan in their room reduced their chances of dying from SIDS by 72 percent. Researchers feel fans may help to circulate fresh air and prevent babies from suffocating by re-breathing exhaled carbon dioxide, one of the culprits many doctors feel causes SIDS. The fans seemed to provide greater protection for babies who slept in warmer environments, over 69 degrees. Opening a window and allowing fresh air to circulate around a baby’s room may also help to prevent SIDS, but it could be just coincidence, according to the study.
Since the early 1990s, infant deaths from SIDS have been cut in half, mostly due to the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations of babies being placed to sleep on their backs rather than their bellies, a firm mattress be used, and to avoid loose bedding in a babies crib. For many years, parents were told to place their babies to sleep on their tummies, but after extensive monitoring and research, doctors and researchers feel it is better to place babies to sleep on their backs, which helps prevent babies from suffocating with their faces being pressed into the mattress. Pacifiers also seem to aid in preventing SIDS, due to the handle keeping infants faces from pressing against their mattress.
Dr. De-Kun Li, the lead researcher of the study and a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist with Kaiser Permanente's research division, explained that young babies have weak neck muscles, which limits their ability to turn their heads and sometimes may prevent them from breathing fresh air. Even though the key step in preventing SIDS is still placing a baby on their back to sleep, extra steps such as using a fan in a baby’s room to prevent SIDS, and several other steps should be followed. .
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has several guidelines for preventing SIDS deaths. However, there are still 2,500 SIDS deaths annually, possibly due to parents not following guidelines that have been issued by the AAP. In fact, according to Pediatrics October issue, around 25 percent of babies are still being placed to sleep on their tummies and 34 percent of babies are sleeping with their parents regularly, which is not recommended by the AAP. Another study involving childcare facilities, showed back sleeping was only being implemented a little over 50% of the time. The number increased to 62 percent following education of parents and child-care facilities. Placing a baby to sleep on their backs seems such a simple task to help prevent a baby’s death, but there is still a large part of the population unaware of the risks involved with tummy sleeping. More education is needed for child-care providers and parents.
The AAP has made several recommendations for preventing SIDS. They are listed below and further information in regards to SIDS prevention can be found on their website at www.healthychildcare.org.Healthy babies should always sleep on their backs. Side sleeping is not as safe as back sleeping and is not advised.Get a physician's note for non-back sleepers that explains why the baby should not use a back-sleeping position.Use safety-approved cribs and firm mattresses (cradles and bassinets may provide safe sleeping enclosures, but safety standards have not been established for these items).Keep cribs free of toys, stuffed animals, and extra bedding.Place the child's feet to the foot of the crib and tuck in a light blanket along the sides and foot of the mattress. The blanket should not come up higher than the infant's chest. Another option is to use sleep clothing and nothing else in the infant's crib.Keep the room at a temperature that is comfortable for a lightly clothed adult.Visually check on sleeping babies often.No smoking around babies. Make sure babies are being watched when you go outside to smoke. Child care providers who smoke should do so outside, with an overcoat on. The overcoat will be removed when they return to work. Never allow smoking in a room where babies sleep, as exposure to smoke in a room where babies sleep, as exposure to smoke is linked to an increased risk of SIDS.Have supervised "tummy time" for awake babies. This will help babies strengthen their muscles and develop normally.Sleep only 1 baby per crib.
Millions of Children Uninsured Despite Having Insured Parents
The old African slogan “It takes a village to raise a child” was coined in a time when, in a close-knit village or community, an ideal group of people surrounded a child and contributed to their upbringing. Even though we live in larger communities today, the slogan still holds true, for while parents bear the primary responsibility for their children, they still need supplemental care from teachers, grandparents, and other people in their community. And just as parents know the basics of keeping children healthy, like making sure they get enough sleep, exercise and healthy food, children still need a health care provider who can follow their development through regular check-ups, make sure they have the proper immunizations and catch or prevent problems that might occur. Unfortunately, millions of U.S. children go without much needed medical care including necessary vaccinations and prescription drugs. Why? Because parents can’t afford the high cost of insuring them.
A new study looked at 2002 to 2005 data from the HHS’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Equality (AHRQ) Medical Expenditure Panel Survey on 39,588 children and adolescents under the age of 19 living with at least one parent. They found that, despite having at least one parent with health insurance, 3.3 percent were uninsured or underinsured at some point during any given year. This translates to some 2.3 million children a year who have no health insurance coverage to pay for preventative care or other medical needs. “This is millions of parents unable to access stable, continuous health-care coverage for themselves and their children. These are painful realities, choices to forego and delay care every day,” study author Dr. Jennifer E. DeVoe, assistant professor of family medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, said at a news conference sponsored by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which also published the study in a special October 22/29 themed issue, “Health of the Nation.”
At the conference, Dr. DeVoe played recorded testimonials from American parents who are frustrated at their inability to provide health-care coverage for their children. “When it comes to your health, how can you say no to a kid?” one unidentified mom said. “It makes me feel really bad.”
Children and adolescents from low-income families where at least one parent had health insurance were more than twice as likely to be uninsured at some point during the year and 73 percent more likely to be uninsured for more than 6 months than those from high-income families. Children from middle-income families with at least one insured parent had a 48 percent greater chance of being uninsured during the year and a 56 percent greater chance of being insured for over 6 months compared with high-income children. In 2005, a typical low-income family of four earned roughly between $24,000 and $39,000; middle-income families earned between $39,000 and $77,000 a year for a four-member family; whereas the high-income family of four earned more than $77,000 a year.
Other characteristics associated with uninsured children were single-parent households, parents with less than a high school education, Hispanic ethnicity, geographic residence in the south or west, and having a parent with public insurance coverage. “These findings add to our understanding of children’s health care coverage gaps,” said AHRQ Director Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. “When children are insured, they have improved access to a regular source of care, including preventive health services.” Dr. Clancy added that some of the low-income uninsured children likely qualify for public coverage, but their parents may not be aware of their eligibility.
Overall, more than 9 million U.S. children are uninsured and that number doubles to some 18 million if you include children who have a coverage gap at one time or another during the year. The study authors assert that some families earn too much to qualify for state insurance programs, but may not be able to afford adding their children to employer-sponsored health insurance. As the cost of health insurance continues to rise, this could become an even larger problem in the future. “The question of whether the employer-based model is sustainable may need to be revisited. In this study, the private system did not do a good job of providing coverage for entire families,” the study authors write.
In a second study published in the same issue of JAMA, researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center said about half of U.S. children without health insurance had to forgo medical care or prescription medications while they were uninsured and even more went without preventive care, including receiving necessary vaccinations. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created to provide public health insurance to families who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance. Under current guidelines, SCHIP covers families living at 100 to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, but the Rochester team found that children from families with annual incomes at 200 to 400 percent of the poverty level ($38,000 to $76,000) are now just as likely to be uninsured as children from lower-income families. The study authors propose that SCHIP be expanded to include those families with yearly incomes at 200 to 400 percent of the poverty level in order to get children the care they need. In a news release, lead researcher Laura Stone, an assistant professor of pediatrics said, “There’s a great need for health-care coverage for children, and it’s not isolated to the poor. It’s moving up the income scale.”
A new study looked at 2002 to 2005 data from the HHS’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Equality (AHRQ) Medical Expenditure Panel Survey on 39,588 children and adolescents under the age of 19 living with at least one parent. They found that, despite having at least one parent with health insurance, 3.3 percent were uninsured or underinsured at some point during any given year. This translates to some 2.3 million children a year who have no health insurance coverage to pay for preventative care or other medical needs. “This is millions of parents unable to access stable, continuous health-care coverage for themselves and their children. These are painful realities, choices to forego and delay care every day,” study author Dr. Jennifer E. DeVoe, assistant professor of family medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, said at a news conference sponsored by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which also published the study in a special October 22/29 themed issue, “Health of the Nation.”
At the conference, Dr. DeVoe played recorded testimonials from American parents who are frustrated at their inability to provide health-care coverage for their children. “When it comes to your health, how can you say no to a kid?” one unidentified mom said. “It makes me feel really bad.”
Children and adolescents from low-income families where at least one parent had health insurance were more than twice as likely to be uninsured at some point during the year and 73 percent more likely to be uninsured for more than 6 months than those from high-income families. Children from middle-income families with at least one insured parent had a 48 percent greater chance of being uninsured during the year and a 56 percent greater chance of being insured for over 6 months compared with high-income children. In 2005, a typical low-income family of four earned roughly between $24,000 and $39,000; middle-income families earned between $39,000 and $77,000 a year for a four-member family; whereas the high-income family of four earned more than $77,000 a year.
Other characteristics associated with uninsured children were single-parent households, parents with less than a high school education, Hispanic ethnicity, geographic residence in the south or west, and having a parent with public insurance coverage. “These findings add to our understanding of children’s health care coverage gaps,” said AHRQ Director Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. “When children are insured, they have improved access to a regular source of care, including preventive health services.” Dr. Clancy added that some of the low-income uninsured children likely qualify for public coverage, but their parents may not be aware of their eligibility.
Overall, more than 9 million U.S. children are uninsured and that number doubles to some 18 million if you include children who have a coverage gap at one time or another during the year. The study authors assert that some families earn too much to qualify for state insurance programs, but may not be able to afford adding their children to employer-sponsored health insurance. As the cost of health insurance continues to rise, this could become an even larger problem in the future. “The question of whether the employer-based model is sustainable may need to be revisited. In this study, the private system did not do a good job of providing coverage for entire families,” the study authors write.
In a second study published in the same issue of JAMA, researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center said about half of U.S. children without health insurance had to forgo medical care or prescription medications while they were uninsured and even more went without preventive care, including receiving necessary vaccinations. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created to provide public health insurance to families who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance. Under current guidelines, SCHIP covers families living at 100 to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, but the Rochester team found that children from families with annual incomes at 200 to 400 percent of the poverty level ($38,000 to $76,000) are now just as likely to be uninsured as children from lower-income families. The study authors propose that SCHIP be expanded to include those families with yearly incomes at 200 to 400 percent of the poverty level in order to get children the care they need. In a news release, lead researcher Laura Stone, an assistant professor of pediatrics said, “There’s a great need for health-care coverage for children, and it’s not isolated to the poor. It’s moving up the income scale.”
otavirus Vaccine Has Proven Success
Many children and even those around them are being rewarded from the oral Rotateq vaccine offered by Merck & Co. The vaccine seems to have had great success preventing many cases of the rotavirus, the most common cause of vomiting and diarrhea in children, since the vaccine's release to the market in 2006.
A report by Quest Diagnostics Health Trends shows the vaccine has reduced the number of cases of the rotavirus significantly though the results vary widely across states. The study found that not only are children who receive the vaccine benefiting, but the vaccine has seemed to reduce cases in children not vaccinated as well, suggesting herd immunity. According to Dr. Jay Lieberman, M.D., medical director of infectious diseases with Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, "Herd immunity is a significant favorable outcome of a successful vaccination program because it means that even unvaccinated individuals may be benefiting from widespread use of a vaccine," and he said, "Our analysis provides evidence for the first time that unvaccinated children may also be reaping the benefits of the rotavirus vaccine. Herd immunity is particularly valuable to newborns and other young infants who have not yet started or completed their vaccine series."
The recently released study is the largest to evaluate the affects of the rotavirus vaccine since its release. The vaccine has been recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, though it isn’t a required vaccine as of yet. Currently it is left up to a patient’s doctor, whether the rotavirus vaccine should be added to a child’s vaccination schedule. Therefore, researchers say the U.S. hasn’t reached 100 percent coverage. The vaccine is recommended for children at two, four and six months of age.
Researchers for Quest Diagnostics Health Trends considered 132,000 patient’s records found in their database, of data gathered from September 2003 through June 2008. The study found, during the peak season of December 2007 through June 2006, positive cases of the rotavirus showed a 76 percent decline. Also, during this period they recognized the number of positive tests compared to negative tests declined by 70 percent. Dr. Lieberman said "Our analysis suggests that the oral rotavirus vaccine has been highly effective at reducing the incidence of rotavirus. Our findings reinforce those from a preliminary report issued by the CDC earlier this year. Considering the toll this disease has traditionally taken on children and their families each year in the U.S., this is exciting and welcome news for physicians and parents."
Half a million deaths of children under five around the world annually are contributed to the rotavirus, and the deaths are found mainly in developing countries. Approximately 410,000 physician visits in the U.S. are attributed to the virus annually, but fortunately we only see an average of 20 to 60 deaths. However, it would be great to see the number of deaths from the rotavirus drop to zero, especially since it seems to be a preventable virus. The virus is characterized by severe acute gastroenteritis in infants and young children, which often causes high fevers, vomiting and diarrhea. Dr. Lieberman pointed out that "Our report also may have important implications for public health efforts in developing parts of the world, where rotavirus tragically is a frequent cause of childhood death," which would hopefully help the efforts being taken to fight the virus in less fortunate areas around the world.
A report by Quest Diagnostics Health Trends shows the vaccine has reduced the number of cases of the rotavirus significantly though the results vary widely across states. The study found that not only are children who receive the vaccine benefiting, but the vaccine has seemed to reduce cases in children not vaccinated as well, suggesting herd immunity. According to Dr. Jay Lieberman, M.D., medical director of infectious diseases with Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, "Herd immunity is a significant favorable outcome of a successful vaccination program because it means that even unvaccinated individuals may be benefiting from widespread use of a vaccine," and he said, "Our analysis provides evidence for the first time that unvaccinated children may also be reaping the benefits of the rotavirus vaccine. Herd immunity is particularly valuable to newborns and other young infants who have not yet started or completed their vaccine series."
The recently released study is the largest to evaluate the affects of the rotavirus vaccine since its release. The vaccine has been recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, though it isn’t a required vaccine as of yet. Currently it is left up to a patient’s doctor, whether the rotavirus vaccine should be added to a child’s vaccination schedule. Therefore, researchers say the U.S. hasn’t reached 100 percent coverage. The vaccine is recommended for children at two, four and six months of age.
Researchers for Quest Diagnostics Health Trends considered 132,000 patient’s records found in their database, of data gathered from September 2003 through June 2008. The study found, during the peak season of December 2007 through June 2006, positive cases of the rotavirus showed a 76 percent decline. Also, during this period they recognized the number of positive tests compared to negative tests declined by 70 percent. Dr. Lieberman said "Our analysis suggests that the oral rotavirus vaccine has been highly effective at reducing the incidence of rotavirus. Our findings reinforce those from a preliminary report issued by the CDC earlier this year. Considering the toll this disease has traditionally taken on children and their families each year in the U.S., this is exciting and welcome news for physicians and parents."
Half a million deaths of children under five around the world annually are contributed to the rotavirus, and the deaths are found mainly in developing countries. Approximately 410,000 physician visits in the U.S. are attributed to the virus annually, but fortunately we only see an average of 20 to 60 deaths. However, it would be great to see the number of deaths from the rotavirus drop to zero, especially since it seems to be a preventable virus. The virus is characterized by severe acute gastroenteritis in infants and young children, which often causes high fevers, vomiting and diarrhea. Dr. Lieberman pointed out that "Our report also may have important implications for public health efforts in developing parts of the world, where rotavirus tragically is a frequent cause of childhood death," which would hopefully help the efforts being taken to fight the virus in less fortunate areas around the world.
Increased Prescription Rate for Kids Due to Obesity
There has been an alarming increase in the number of children in the United States who are taking medication for chronic diseases. The growing problem of childhood obesity is apparently the culprit for health issues arising among the nation’s youngsters.
At the top of the list is the number of children who are now on medication for type 2 diabetes, a condition that has been linked to obesity. Six out of 10,000 children, a number that has more than doubled from 2002 to 2005, indicates that at a minimum of 23,000 privately insured children in the U.S. now take diabetes medications. In addition, there have been substantial increases in prescriptions for asthma and high cholesterol as well as for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Other medications on the rise for children include prescriptions for high blood pressure and depression. This shocking information comes from the results of new study published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics.
Study co-author Dr. Donna Halloran, an assistant professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University stated, “Across all the medication classes we looked at, the rates of use increased—sometimes dramatically.” She went on to explain, “This is particularly concerning given that several of these diagnoses have been linked to obesity—diabetes, hypertension, depression, asthma.”
According to Emily Cox, study co-author and manager of outcomes research at Express Scripts Inc., in St. Louis, “We've got a lot of sick children.” She also said that although type 2 diabetes has been an adult onset in the past, children as young as the age of 5 are now being treated for the condition with prescription drugs.
The researchers analyzed the use of medication prescribed to almost 4 million U.S. children from 2002 to 2005. The information came from pharmacy claims and eligibility information for youngsters enrolled with Express Scripts, which serves thousands of client groups, employers, and insurance carriers, among others.
Significant increases were seen for prescriptions given to children between the ages of 5 and 19 over the four-year period. The doubling of the type 2 diabetes medication usage stemmed from a 166 percent increase in occurrences of the disease among girls ages 10 to 14 coupled with a 135 percent increase in occurrences among girls ages 15 to 19.
Other findings of the study included a 46.5 percent increase in the use of drugs to treat asthma, a 40.4 percent increase in the use of drugs to treat ADHD and a 15 percent increase in the number of prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering medications. In addition, the research team found moderate increases in the use of medications for high blood pressure and antidepressants.
The ratio of prescription increases was found to be much higher in girls than in boys with the use of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes increasing by 147 percent among girls, compared to only 39 percent among boys, while the use of drugs to treat ADHD increased 63 percent among girls and only 33 percent among boys. Similarly, the use of antidepressants rose 7 percent among girls with only a 4 percent increase among boys.
According to Cox, “Whether the increased use of medications is a good thing really depends on your perspective. Most people who would look at these numbers would indicate that these are worrisome trends.” She explained that there is a need to understand what is driving these increases, as they are only symptoms of underlying problems. Cox also noted that as the number of obese children increases, the number of children with chronic diseases is also increasing.
Both Cox and Halloran agree that although treatment for the medical conditions is a good thing, yet the concern is whether doctors are more likely to use drug therapy over diet and exercise. According to Cox, it is not known if there's a link between obesity and ADHD or asthma, but a tie-in between depression and obesity would make sense.
Halloran recommends that children eat more fresh fruit and avoid consuming salty fast foods and high-calorie sodas. In addition, children should increase their physical fitness activities. She also advises parents to talk more to teachers if they suspect their children have attention deficit or hyperactivity problems.
At the top of the list is the number of children who are now on medication for type 2 diabetes, a condition that has been linked to obesity. Six out of 10,000 children, a number that has more than doubled from 2002 to 2005, indicates that at a minimum of 23,000 privately insured children in the U.S. now take diabetes medications. In addition, there have been substantial increases in prescriptions for asthma and high cholesterol as well as for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Other medications on the rise for children include prescriptions for high blood pressure and depression. This shocking information comes from the results of new study published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics.
Study co-author Dr. Donna Halloran, an assistant professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University stated, “Across all the medication classes we looked at, the rates of use increased—sometimes dramatically.” She went on to explain, “This is particularly concerning given that several of these diagnoses have been linked to obesity—diabetes, hypertension, depression, asthma.”
According to Emily Cox, study co-author and manager of outcomes research at Express Scripts Inc., in St. Louis, “We've got a lot of sick children.” She also said that although type 2 diabetes has been an adult onset in the past, children as young as the age of 5 are now being treated for the condition with prescription drugs.
The researchers analyzed the use of medication prescribed to almost 4 million U.S. children from 2002 to 2005. The information came from pharmacy claims and eligibility information for youngsters enrolled with Express Scripts, which serves thousands of client groups, employers, and insurance carriers, among others.
Significant increases were seen for prescriptions given to children between the ages of 5 and 19 over the four-year period. The doubling of the type 2 diabetes medication usage stemmed from a 166 percent increase in occurrences of the disease among girls ages 10 to 14 coupled with a 135 percent increase in occurrences among girls ages 15 to 19.
Other findings of the study included a 46.5 percent increase in the use of drugs to treat asthma, a 40.4 percent increase in the use of drugs to treat ADHD and a 15 percent increase in the number of prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering medications. In addition, the research team found moderate increases in the use of medications for high blood pressure and antidepressants.
The ratio of prescription increases was found to be much higher in girls than in boys with the use of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes increasing by 147 percent among girls, compared to only 39 percent among boys, while the use of drugs to treat ADHD increased 63 percent among girls and only 33 percent among boys. Similarly, the use of antidepressants rose 7 percent among girls with only a 4 percent increase among boys.
According to Cox, “Whether the increased use of medications is a good thing really depends on your perspective. Most people who would look at these numbers would indicate that these are worrisome trends.” She explained that there is a need to understand what is driving these increases, as they are only symptoms of underlying problems. Cox also noted that as the number of obese children increases, the number of children with chronic diseases is also increasing.
Both Cox and Halloran agree that although treatment for the medical conditions is a good thing, yet the concern is whether doctors are more likely to use drug therapy over diet and exercise. According to Cox, it is not known if there's a link between obesity and ADHD or asthma, but a tie-in between depression and obesity would make sense.
Halloran recommends that children eat more fresh fruit and avoid consuming salty fast foods and high-calorie sodas. In addition, children should increase their physical fitness activities. She also advises parents to talk more to teachers if they suspect their children have attention deficit or hyperactivity problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)