User login
Parent training pays off for children with autism
“Referrals for parent training should now be considered the expected standard for medical practice,” said a member of the research team, Timothy B. Smith, PhD, a professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Programs that show parents how to teach functional skills and address maladaptive behaviors, also known as parent-mediated or parent-implemented interventions, offer an alternative to one-on-one professional services, which are in short supply, according to the paper, which was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Methods and results
The meta-analysis included 54 papers based on randomized clinical trials involving 2,895 children, which compared the effects of various parent interventions with professional treatment, treatment as usual, or being on a wait-list to receive an intervention.
Overall the research team reported “moderately strong” average benefits from the parent-mediated interventions (Hedges’ g, 0.553), indicating a medium effect size. Parent interventions had the greatest effect on outcomes involving positive behavior and social skills (0.603), followed by language and communication (0.545), maladaptive behavior (0.519), and life skills (0.239).
Similar benefits were observed regardless of a child’s age or sex or which parent or parents implemented an intervention. The effects also appeared to be consistent regardless of intervention characteristics, such as the number of training sessions parents received, although the researchers noted that many studies did not provide data on such details.
Paul Carbone, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the review, said it demonstrates that such parental engagement is “vitally important” and pediatricians “should not hesitate to refer interested families.”
Dr. Carbone, who is the medical director of an assessment program for children with suspected developmental disabilities, said many training programs for parents have adopted telehealth, adding to their convenience. To make appropriate referrals, primary care clinicians should become acquainted with local programs and learn which outcomes they target, he said.
Dr. Smith noted that primary care physicians are “better trained now than ever” to identify autism spectrum disorder and therefore are among the first to identify those conditions and help parents understand “that their actions at home absolutely make a difference in the child’s development.”
Overcoming limitations, future research needs
The research team attempted to overcome limitations with previous reviews by using comprehensive search terms and other methods to identify relevant studies, including some that had not been published. They included only studies that reflect common practice of training multiple parents simultaneously, they wrote.
Dr. Smith noted that long-term outcomes data and further study to compare effects on children with mild, moderate, and severe autism are needed.
Although logic would suggest greater benefits for children with severe disease, there are no data to demonstrate that, he said.
The authors of the study and Dr. Carbone reported no relevant competing interests.
“Referrals for parent training should now be considered the expected standard for medical practice,” said a member of the research team, Timothy B. Smith, PhD, a professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Programs that show parents how to teach functional skills and address maladaptive behaviors, also known as parent-mediated or parent-implemented interventions, offer an alternative to one-on-one professional services, which are in short supply, according to the paper, which was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Methods and results
The meta-analysis included 54 papers based on randomized clinical trials involving 2,895 children, which compared the effects of various parent interventions with professional treatment, treatment as usual, or being on a wait-list to receive an intervention.
Overall the research team reported “moderately strong” average benefits from the parent-mediated interventions (Hedges’ g, 0.553), indicating a medium effect size. Parent interventions had the greatest effect on outcomes involving positive behavior and social skills (0.603), followed by language and communication (0.545), maladaptive behavior (0.519), and life skills (0.239).
Similar benefits were observed regardless of a child’s age or sex or which parent or parents implemented an intervention. The effects also appeared to be consistent regardless of intervention characteristics, such as the number of training sessions parents received, although the researchers noted that many studies did not provide data on such details.
Paul Carbone, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the review, said it demonstrates that such parental engagement is “vitally important” and pediatricians “should not hesitate to refer interested families.”
Dr. Carbone, who is the medical director of an assessment program for children with suspected developmental disabilities, said many training programs for parents have adopted telehealth, adding to their convenience. To make appropriate referrals, primary care clinicians should become acquainted with local programs and learn which outcomes they target, he said.
Dr. Smith noted that primary care physicians are “better trained now than ever” to identify autism spectrum disorder and therefore are among the first to identify those conditions and help parents understand “that their actions at home absolutely make a difference in the child’s development.”
Overcoming limitations, future research needs
The research team attempted to overcome limitations with previous reviews by using comprehensive search terms and other methods to identify relevant studies, including some that had not been published. They included only studies that reflect common practice of training multiple parents simultaneously, they wrote.
Dr. Smith noted that long-term outcomes data and further study to compare effects on children with mild, moderate, and severe autism are needed.
Although logic would suggest greater benefits for children with severe disease, there are no data to demonstrate that, he said.
The authors of the study and Dr. Carbone reported no relevant competing interests.
“Referrals for parent training should now be considered the expected standard for medical practice,” said a member of the research team, Timothy B. Smith, PhD, a professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Programs that show parents how to teach functional skills and address maladaptive behaviors, also known as parent-mediated or parent-implemented interventions, offer an alternative to one-on-one professional services, which are in short supply, according to the paper, which was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Methods and results
The meta-analysis included 54 papers based on randomized clinical trials involving 2,895 children, which compared the effects of various parent interventions with professional treatment, treatment as usual, or being on a wait-list to receive an intervention.
Overall the research team reported “moderately strong” average benefits from the parent-mediated interventions (Hedges’ g, 0.553), indicating a medium effect size. Parent interventions had the greatest effect on outcomes involving positive behavior and social skills (0.603), followed by language and communication (0.545), maladaptive behavior (0.519), and life skills (0.239).
Similar benefits were observed regardless of a child’s age or sex or which parent or parents implemented an intervention. The effects also appeared to be consistent regardless of intervention characteristics, such as the number of training sessions parents received, although the researchers noted that many studies did not provide data on such details.
Paul Carbone, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the review, said it demonstrates that such parental engagement is “vitally important” and pediatricians “should not hesitate to refer interested families.”
Dr. Carbone, who is the medical director of an assessment program for children with suspected developmental disabilities, said many training programs for parents have adopted telehealth, adding to their convenience. To make appropriate referrals, primary care clinicians should become acquainted with local programs and learn which outcomes they target, he said.
Dr. Smith noted that primary care physicians are “better trained now than ever” to identify autism spectrum disorder and therefore are among the first to identify those conditions and help parents understand “that their actions at home absolutely make a difference in the child’s development.”
Overcoming limitations, future research needs
The research team attempted to overcome limitations with previous reviews by using comprehensive search terms and other methods to identify relevant studies, including some that had not been published. They included only studies that reflect common practice of training multiple parents simultaneously, they wrote.
Dr. Smith noted that long-term outcomes data and further study to compare effects on children with mild, moderate, and severe autism are needed.
Although logic would suggest greater benefits for children with severe disease, there are no data to demonstrate that, he said.
The authors of the study and Dr. Carbone reported no relevant competing interests.
FROM JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS
Candy, desserts: A ‘gateway’ to unhealthy eating among teens
Certain ultraprocessed foods – especially candy, prepackaged pastries, and frozen desserts – could be “gateway foods” for adolescents, leading them to increase their intake of other unhealthy foods, a new study suggests.
“For teens, gateway ultraprocessed foods (candy, store pastries, frozen desserts) should be prioritized for preventive dietary interventions as they increase intake across all other UPFs,” lead researcher Maria Balhara said in an interview.
“The good news,” said Ms. Balhara, is that even small changes, such as reducing how often gateway foods are consumed, may reduce overall intake of unhealthy foods and have a “big impact” on overall health.
Ms. Balhara has a unique perspective on adolescent eating habits: She’s 16 years old, from Florida, and conducted the study while dual-enrolled at Broward College and Cooper City High School.
Her study was released Sept. 7 ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.
Blame the pandemic?
Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including weight gain, hypertension, and increased risk for heart disease and premature death.
For her research, Ms. Balhara asked 315 teenagers (42% male) from 12 high schools in South Florida how often they consumed UPFs over two time periods – before COVID in 2019 and after COVID restrictions were eased in 2022 – using a survey that she developed called the Processed Intake Evaluation (PIE).
More than 2 in 5 teens (43%) increased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.
During this time, increased consumption of frozen desserts was associated with an 11% increase in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas increased consumption of prepackaged pastries and candy was associated with a 12% and 31%, respectively, increase in consumption of all other UPFs, Ms. Balhara found.
Encouragingly, 57% of teens decreased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.
During this time, decreased consumption of processed meats was associated with an 8% decrease in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas decreased consumption of white bread and biscuits was associated with a 9% and 10%, respectively, decrease in consumption of all other UPFs.
The results provide initial evidence for a new “gateway food model,” Ms. Balhara told this news organization, in which certain UPFs, when increased, drive overall consumption of all UPFs among teens.
Limitations of the study include the self-reported dietary data and the fact that the PIE survey has not been validated.
Not all UPFs are bad
“I commend Ms. Balhara for her project, which highlights the importance of establishing good dietary patterns early in life,” Donna K. Arnett, PhD, past president of the AHA, said in a news release.
“The relationship between poor dietary quality and cardiovascular risk factors is well-established. While this is a small, preliminary study, it’s an important topic to continue to investigate and help us understand ways we can influence dietary behaviors to promote optimal cardiovascular health for all ages,” said Dr. Arnett, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Offering perspective on the study, Taylor C. Wallace, PhD, with the department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., made the point that “food processing and ultraprocessed foods aren’t the problem. The problem is the types of ultraprocessed foods on the market that people consume.”
“Remember, non-fat, vitamin D fortified yogurt is also ‘ultra-processed,’ and it’s very healthy,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Wallace said that it’s no surprise that teens increased their intake of UPFs during the pandemic.
“Of course, people increased processed food intake during the pandemic. Processed foods are shelf stable at a time when grocery stores were running out of things and supply chains weren’t able to keep up. Also, many were depressed and use food to indulge,” he noted.
The study had no funding. Ms. Balhara has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Certain ultraprocessed foods – especially candy, prepackaged pastries, and frozen desserts – could be “gateway foods” for adolescents, leading them to increase their intake of other unhealthy foods, a new study suggests.
“For teens, gateway ultraprocessed foods (candy, store pastries, frozen desserts) should be prioritized for preventive dietary interventions as they increase intake across all other UPFs,” lead researcher Maria Balhara said in an interview.
“The good news,” said Ms. Balhara, is that even small changes, such as reducing how often gateway foods are consumed, may reduce overall intake of unhealthy foods and have a “big impact” on overall health.
Ms. Balhara has a unique perspective on adolescent eating habits: She’s 16 years old, from Florida, and conducted the study while dual-enrolled at Broward College and Cooper City High School.
Her study was released Sept. 7 ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.
Blame the pandemic?
Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including weight gain, hypertension, and increased risk for heart disease and premature death.
For her research, Ms. Balhara asked 315 teenagers (42% male) from 12 high schools in South Florida how often they consumed UPFs over two time periods – before COVID in 2019 and after COVID restrictions were eased in 2022 – using a survey that she developed called the Processed Intake Evaluation (PIE).
More than 2 in 5 teens (43%) increased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.
During this time, increased consumption of frozen desserts was associated with an 11% increase in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas increased consumption of prepackaged pastries and candy was associated with a 12% and 31%, respectively, increase in consumption of all other UPFs, Ms. Balhara found.
Encouragingly, 57% of teens decreased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.
During this time, decreased consumption of processed meats was associated with an 8% decrease in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas decreased consumption of white bread and biscuits was associated with a 9% and 10%, respectively, decrease in consumption of all other UPFs.
The results provide initial evidence for a new “gateway food model,” Ms. Balhara told this news organization, in which certain UPFs, when increased, drive overall consumption of all UPFs among teens.
Limitations of the study include the self-reported dietary data and the fact that the PIE survey has not been validated.
Not all UPFs are bad
“I commend Ms. Balhara for her project, which highlights the importance of establishing good dietary patterns early in life,” Donna K. Arnett, PhD, past president of the AHA, said in a news release.
“The relationship between poor dietary quality and cardiovascular risk factors is well-established. While this is a small, preliminary study, it’s an important topic to continue to investigate and help us understand ways we can influence dietary behaviors to promote optimal cardiovascular health for all ages,” said Dr. Arnett, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Offering perspective on the study, Taylor C. Wallace, PhD, with the department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., made the point that “food processing and ultraprocessed foods aren’t the problem. The problem is the types of ultraprocessed foods on the market that people consume.”
“Remember, non-fat, vitamin D fortified yogurt is also ‘ultra-processed,’ and it’s very healthy,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Wallace said that it’s no surprise that teens increased their intake of UPFs during the pandemic.
“Of course, people increased processed food intake during the pandemic. Processed foods are shelf stable at a time when grocery stores were running out of things and supply chains weren’t able to keep up. Also, many were depressed and use food to indulge,” he noted.
The study had no funding. Ms. Balhara has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Certain ultraprocessed foods – especially candy, prepackaged pastries, and frozen desserts – could be “gateway foods” for adolescents, leading them to increase their intake of other unhealthy foods, a new study suggests.
“For teens, gateway ultraprocessed foods (candy, store pastries, frozen desserts) should be prioritized for preventive dietary interventions as they increase intake across all other UPFs,” lead researcher Maria Balhara said in an interview.
“The good news,” said Ms. Balhara, is that even small changes, such as reducing how often gateway foods are consumed, may reduce overall intake of unhealthy foods and have a “big impact” on overall health.
Ms. Balhara has a unique perspective on adolescent eating habits: She’s 16 years old, from Florida, and conducted the study while dual-enrolled at Broward College and Cooper City High School.
Her study was released Sept. 7 ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.
Blame the pandemic?
Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including weight gain, hypertension, and increased risk for heart disease and premature death.
For her research, Ms. Balhara asked 315 teenagers (42% male) from 12 high schools in South Florida how often they consumed UPFs over two time periods – before COVID in 2019 and after COVID restrictions were eased in 2022 – using a survey that she developed called the Processed Intake Evaluation (PIE).
More than 2 in 5 teens (43%) increased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.
During this time, increased consumption of frozen desserts was associated with an 11% increase in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas increased consumption of prepackaged pastries and candy was associated with a 12% and 31%, respectively, increase in consumption of all other UPFs, Ms. Balhara found.
Encouragingly, 57% of teens decreased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.
During this time, decreased consumption of processed meats was associated with an 8% decrease in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas decreased consumption of white bread and biscuits was associated with a 9% and 10%, respectively, decrease in consumption of all other UPFs.
The results provide initial evidence for a new “gateway food model,” Ms. Balhara told this news organization, in which certain UPFs, when increased, drive overall consumption of all UPFs among teens.
Limitations of the study include the self-reported dietary data and the fact that the PIE survey has not been validated.
Not all UPFs are bad
“I commend Ms. Balhara for her project, which highlights the importance of establishing good dietary patterns early in life,” Donna K. Arnett, PhD, past president of the AHA, said in a news release.
“The relationship between poor dietary quality and cardiovascular risk factors is well-established. While this is a small, preliminary study, it’s an important topic to continue to investigate and help us understand ways we can influence dietary behaviors to promote optimal cardiovascular health for all ages,” said Dr. Arnett, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Offering perspective on the study, Taylor C. Wallace, PhD, with the department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., made the point that “food processing and ultraprocessed foods aren’t the problem. The problem is the types of ultraprocessed foods on the market that people consume.”
“Remember, non-fat, vitamin D fortified yogurt is also ‘ultra-processed,’ and it’s very healthy,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Wallace said that it’s no surprise that teens increased their intake of UPFs during the pandemic.
“Of course, people increased processed food intake during the pandemic. Processed foods are shelf stable at a time when grocery stores were running out of things and supply chains weren’t able to keep up. Also, many were depressed and use food to indulge,” he noted.
The study had no funding. Ms. Balhara has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM HYPERTENSION 2022
Fish in pregnancy not dangerous after all, says new study
A new study has called into question the decades-long official guidance advising pregnant women to limit consumption of certain fish because of their potentially high mercury content. That advice was based particularly on one 1997 study suggesting a correlation between fetal exposure to methylmercury and cognitive dysfunction at age 7.
The U.K’s National Health Service currently advises not only pregnant women but also all those who are potentially fertile (those “who are planning a pregnancy or may have a child one day”) to limit oily fish consumption to no more than two portions per week. During pregnancy and while trying to get pregnant, women are advised to avoid shark, swordfish, and marlin altogether.
Suspicions arose from study involving consumption of pilot whale
However, researchers from the University of Bristol (England) now suggest that assumptions generated by the original 1997 study – of a cohort of women in the Faroe Islands – were unwarranted. “It was clearly stated that the methylmercury levels were associated with consumption of pilot whale (a sea mammal, not a fish),” they said.
The pilot whale is a species known to concentrate cadmium and mercury, and indeed in 1989 Faroe Islanders themselves had been advised to limit consumption of both whale meat and blubber, and to abstain completely from liver and kidneys.
Yet, as the authors pointed out, following the 1997 study, “the subsequent assumptions were that seafood in general was responsible for increased mercury levels in the mother.”
New study shows ‘no evidence of harm’
Their new research, published in NeuroToxicology, has now shown that “there is no evidence of harm from these fish,” they said. They recommend that advice for pregnant women should now be revised.
The study drew together analyses on over 4,131 pregnant mothers from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), also known as the ‘Children of the 90s’ study, with similar detailed studies conducted in the Seychelles. The two populations differ considerably in their frequency of fish consumption: fish is a major component of the diet in the Seychelles, but eaten less frequently in the Avon study area, centered on Bristol.
The team looked for studies using the data from these two contrasting cohorts where mercury levels had been measured during pregnancy and the children followed up at frequent intervals during their childhood. Longitudinal studies in the Seychelles “have not demonstrated harmful cognitive effects in children with increasing maternal mercury levels”, they reported.
The same proved true in the United Kingdom, a more-developed country where fish is eaten less frequently, they found. They summarized the results from various papers that used ALSPAC data and found no adverse associations between total mercury levels measured in maternal whole blood and umbilical cord tissue with children’s cognitive development, in terms of either IQ or scholastic abilities.
In addition, extensive dietary questionnaires during pregnancy had allowed estimates of total fish intake to be calculated, as well as variations in the amount of each type of seafood consumed. “Although seafood is a source of dietary mercury, it appeared to explain a relatively small proportion (9%) of the variation in total blood mercury in our U.K. study population,” they said – actually less than the variance attributable to socio-demographic characteristics of the mother (10.4%).
Positive benefits of eating fish irrespective of type
What mattered was not which types of fish were eaten but whether the woman ate fish or not, which emerged as the most important factor. The mother’s prenatal mercury level was positively associated with her child’s IQ if she had eaten fish in pregnancy, but not if she had not.
“Significantly beneficial associations with prenatal mercury levels were shown for total and performance IQ, mathematical/scientific reasoning, and birth weight, in fish-consuming versus non–fish-consuming mothers,” the authors said. “These beneficial findings are similar to those observed in the Seychelles, where fish consumption is high and prenatal mercury levels are 10 times higher than U.S. levels.”
Caroline Taylor, PhD, senior research fellow and coauthor of the study, said: “We found that the mother’s mercury level during pregnancy is likely to have no adverse effect on the development of the child provided that the mother eats fish. If she did not eat fish, then there was some evidence that her mercury level could have a harmful effect on the child.”
The team said that this was because the essential nutrients in the fish could be protective against the mercury content of the fish. “This could be because of the benefits from the mix of essential nutrients that fish provides, including long-chain fatty acids, iodine, vitamin D and selenium,” said Dr. Taylor.
Women stopped eating any fish ‘to be on the safe side’
The authors called for a change in official guidance. “Health advice to pregnant women concerning consumption of mercury-containing foods has resulted in anxiety, with subsequent avoidance of fish consumption during pregnancy.” Seafood contains many nutrients crucial for children’s growth and development, but “there is the possibility that some women will stop eating any fish ‘to be on the safe side.’ ”
The authors said: “Although advice to pregnant women was generally that fish was good, the accompanying caveat was to avoid fish with high levels of mercury. Psychologically, the latter was the message that women remembered, and the general reaction has been for women to reduce their intake of all seafood.”
Coauthor Jean Golding, emeritus professor of pediatric and perinatal epidemiology at the University of Bristol, said: “It is important that advisories from health professionals revise their advice warning against eating certain species of fish. There is no evidence of harm from these fish, but there is evidence from different countries that such advice can cause confusion in pregnant women. The guidance for pregnancy should highlight ‘Eat at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily’ – and omit all warnings that certain fish should not be eaten.”
The study was funded via core support for ALSPAC by the UK Medical Research Council and the UK Wellcome Trust.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
A new study has called into question the decades-long official guidance advising pregnant women to limit consumption of certain fish because of their potentially high mercury content. That advice was based particularly on one 1997 study suggesting a correlation between fetal exposure to methylmercury and cognitive dysfunction at age 7.
The U.K’s National Health Service currently advises not only pregnant women but also all those who are potentially fertile (those “who are planning a pregnancy or may have a child one day”) to limit oily fish consumption to no more than two portions per week. During pregnancy and while trying to get pregnant, women are advised to avoid shark, swordfish, and marlin altogether.
Suspicions arose from study involving consumption of pilot whale
However, researchers from the University of Bristol (England) now suggest that assumptions generated by the original 1997 study – of a cohort of women in the Faroe Islands – were unwarranted. “It was clearly stated that the methylmercury levels were associated with consumption of pilot whale (a sea mammal, not a fish),” they said.
The pilot whale is a species known to concentrate cadmium and mercury, and indeed in 1989 Faroe Islanders themselves had been advised to limit consumption of both whale meat and blubber, and to abstain completely from liver and kidneys.
Yet, as the authors pointed out, following the 1997 study, “the subsequent assumptions were that seafood in general was responsible for increased mercury levels in the mother.”
New study shows ‘no evidence of harm’
Their new research, published in NeuroToxicology, has now shown that “there is no evidence of harm from these fish,” they said. They recommend that advice for pregnant women should now be revised.
The study drew together analyses on over 4,131 pregnant mothers from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), also known as the ‘Children of the 90s’ study, with similar detailed studies conducted in the Seychelles. The two populations differ considerably in their frequency of fish consumption: fish is a major component of the diet in the Seychelles, but eaten less frequently in the Avon study area, centered on Bristol.
The team looked for studies using the data from these two contrasting cohorts where mercury levels had been measured during pregnancy and the children followed up at frequent intervals during their childhood. Longitudinal studies in the Seychelles “have not demonstrated harmful cognitive effects in children with increasing maternal mercury levels”, they reported.
The same proved true in the United Kingdom, a more-developed country where fish is eaten less frequently, they found. They summarized the results from various papers that used ALSPAC data and found no adverse associations between total mercury levels measured in maternal whole blood and umbilical cord tissue with children’s cognitive development, in terms of either IQ or scholastic abilities.
In addition, extensive dietary questionnaires during pregnancy had allowed estimates of total fish intake to be calculated, as well as variations in the amount of each type of seafood consumed. “Although seafood is a source of dietary mercury, it appeared to explain a relatively small proportion (9%) of the variation in total blood mercury in our U.K. study population,” they said – actually less than the variance attributable to socio-demographic characteristics of the mother (10.4%).
Positive benefits of eating fish irrespective of type
What mattered was not which types of fish were eaten but whether the woman ate fish or not, which emerged as the most important factor. The mother’s prenatal mercury level was positively associated with her child’s IQ if she had eaten fish in pregnancy, but not if she had not.
“Significantly beneficial associations with prenatal mercury levels were shown for total and performance IQ, mathematical/scientific reasoning, and birth weight, in fish-consuming versus non–fish-consuming mothers,” the authors said. “These beneficial findings are similar to those observed in the Seychelles, where fish consumption is high and prenatal mercury levels are 10 times higher than U.S. levels.”
Caroline Taylor, PhD, senior research fellow and coauthor of the study, said: “We found that the mother’s mercury level during pregnancy is likely to have no adverse effect on the development of the child provided that the mother eats fish. If she did not eat fish, then there was some evidence that her mercury level could have a harmful effect on the child.”
The team said that this was because the essential nutrients in the fish could be protective against the mercury content of the fish. “This could be because of the benefits from the mix of essential nutrients that fish provides, including long-chain fatty acids, iodine, vitamin D and selenium,” said Dr. Taylor.
Women stopped eating any fish ‘to be on the safe side’
The authors called for a change in official guidance. “Health advice to pregnant women concerning consumption of mercury-containing foods has resulted in anxiety, with subsequent avoidance of fish consumption during pregnancy.” Seafood contains many nutrients crucial for children’s growth and development, but “there is the possibility that some women will stop eating any fish ‘to be on the safe side.’ ”
The authors said: “Although advice to pregnant women was generally that fish was good, the accompanying caveat was to avoid fish with high levels of mercury. Psychologically, the latter was the message that women remembered, and the general reaction has been for women to reduce their intake of all seafood.”
Coauthor Jean Golding, emeritus professor of pediatric and perinatal epidemiology at the University of Bristol, said: “It is important that advisories from health professionals revise their advice warning against eating certain species of fish. There is no evidence of harm from these fish, but there is evidence from different countries that such advice can cause confusion in pregnant women. The guidance for pregnancy should highlight ‘Eat at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily’ – and omit all warnings that certain fish should not be eaten.”
The study was funded via core support for ALSPAC by the UK Medical Research Council and the UK Wellcome Trust.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
A new study has called into question the decades-long official guidance advising pregnant women to limit consumption of certain fish because of their potentially high mercury content. That advice was based particularly on one 1997 study suggesting a correlation between fetal exposure to methylmercury and cognitive dysfunction at age 7.
The U.K’s National Health Service currently advises not only pregnant women but also all those who are potentially fertile (those “who are planning a pregnancy or may have a child one day”) to limit oily fish consumption to no more than two portions per week. During pregnancy and while trying to get pregnant, women are advised to avoid shark, swordfish, and marlin altogether.
Suspicions arose from study involving consumption of pilot whale
However, researchers from the University of Bristol (England) now suggest that assumptions generated by the original 1997 study – of a cohort of women in the Faroe Islands – were unwarranted. “It was clearly stated that the methylmercury levels were associated with consumption of pilot whale (a sea mammal, not a fish),” they said.
The pilot whale is a species known to concentrate cadmium and mercury, and indeed in 1989 Faroe Islanders themselves had been advised to limit consumption of both whale meat and blubber, and to abstain completely from liver and kidneys.
Yet, as the authors pointed out, following the 1997 study, “the subsequent assumptions were that seafood in general was responsible for increased mercury levels in the mother.”
New study shows ‘no evidence of harm’
Their new research, published in NeuroToxicology, has now shown that “there is no evidence of harm from these fish,” they said. They recommend that advice for pregnant women should now be revised.
The study drew together analyses on over 4,131 pregnant mothers from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), also known as the ‘Children of the 90s’ study, with similar detailed studies conducted in the Seychelles. The two populations differ considerably in their frequency of fish consumption: fish is a major component of the diet in the Seychelles, but eaten less frequently in the Avon study area, centered on Bristol.
The team looked for studies using the data from these two contrasting cohorts where mercury levels had been measured during pregnancy and the children followed up at frequent intervals during their childhood. Longitudinal studies in the Seychelles “have not demonstrated harmful cognitive effects in children with increasing maternal mercury levels”, they reported.
The same proved true in the United Kingdom, a more-developed country where fish is eaten less frequently, they found. They summarized the results from various papers that used ALSPAC data and found no adverse associations between total mercury levels measured in maternal whole blood and umbilical cord tissue with children’s cognitive development, in terms of either IQ or scholastic abilities.
In addition, extensive dietary questionnaires during pregnancy had allowed estimates of total fish intake to be calculated, as well as variations in the amount of each type of seafood consumed. “Although seafood is a source of dietary mercury, it appeared to explain a relatively small proportion (9%) of the variation in total blood mercury in our U.K. study population,” they said – actually less than the variance attributable to socio-demographic characteristics of the mother (10.4%).
Positive benefits of eating fish irrespective of type
What mattered was not which types of fish were eaten but whether the woman ate fish or not, which emerged as the most important factor. The mother’s prenatal mercury level was positively associated with her child’s IQ if she had eaten fish in pregnancy, but not if she had not.
“Significantly beneficial associations with prenatal mercury levels were shown for total and performance IQ, mathematical/scientific reasoning, and birth weight, in fish-consuming versus non–fish-consuming mothers,” the authors said. “These beneficial findings are similar to those observed in the Seychelles, where fish consumption is high and prenatal mercury levels are 10 times higher than U.S. levels.”
Caroline Taylor, PhD, senior research fellow and coauthor of the study, said: “We found that the mother’s mercury level during pregnancy is likely to have no adverse effect on the development of the child provided that the mother eats fish. If she did not eat fish, then there was some evidence that her mercury level could have a harmful effect on the child.”
The team said that this was because the essential nutrients in the fish could be protective against the mercury content of the fish. “This could be because of the benefits from the mix of essential nutrients that fish provides, including long-chain fatty acids, iodine, vitamin D and selenium,” said Dr. Taylor.
Women stopped eating any fish ‘to be on the safe side’
The authors called for a change in official guidance. “Health advice to pregnant women concerning consumption of mercury-containing foods has resulted in anxiety, with subsequent avoidance of fish consumption during pregnancy.” Seafood contains many nutrients crucial for children’s growth and development, but “there is the possibility that some women will stop eating any fish ‘to be on the safe side.’ ”
The authors said: “Although advice to pregnant women was generally that fish was good, the accompanying caveat was to avoid fish with high levels of mercury. Psychologically, the latter was the message that women remembered, and the general reaction has been for women to reduce their intake of all seafood.”
Coauthor Jean Golding, emeritus professor of pediatric and perinatal epidemiology at the University of Bristol, said: “It is important that advisories from health professionals revise their advice warning against eating certain species of fish. There is no evidence of harm from these fish, but there is evidence from different countries that such advice can cause confusion in pregnant women. The guidance for pregnancy should highlight ‘Eat at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily’ – and omit all warnings that certain fish should not be eaten.”
The study was funded via core support for ALSPAC by the UK Medical Research Council and the UK Wellcome Trust.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
FROM NEUROTOXICOLOGY
AI and reality – diagnosing otitis media is a real challenge
Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.
Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”
You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.
Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.
The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.
Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?
My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.
However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.
If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.
Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”
You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.
Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.
The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.
Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?
My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.
However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.
If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.
Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”
You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.
Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.
The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.
Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?
My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.
However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.
If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Where a child eats breakfast is important
We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?
A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.
There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.
The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.
It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.
On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.
So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.
For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?
A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.
There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.
The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.
It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.
On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.
So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.
For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?
A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.
There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.
The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.
It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.
On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.
So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.
For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Pediatricians urge flu vaccine for children
Attention parents: The nation’s leading pediatric medical society is urging you to make sure your children get a flu shot this fall to prevent and control the spread of the illness.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently called on parents and caregivers to seek flu vaccines for their children as soon as they are available in the fall. The group is encouraging parents to catch up on all other vaccines for their children, too.
“As a pediatrician and a parent, I consider the flu vaccine as critical for all family members,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, said in a statement about the academy’s recommendations. “We should not underestimate the flu, especially when other respiratory viruses like COVID-19 are circulating within our communities. Besides making your child miserable and wreaking havoc on your family’s routine, influenza can also be serious and even deadly in children.”
Only 55% of children aged 6 months to 17 years had been vaccinated against influenza as of early April – down 2% from the previous April – and coverage levels were 8.1% lower for Black children compared with non-Hispanic White children, according to the CDC. In the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children in the United States died of the infection, equaling the high mark for deaths set in the 2017-2018 season, the agency reported.
American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend children aged 6 months and older be vaccinated with the flu vaccine every year. Depending on the child’s age and health, they may receive either a shot, which has an inactive version of the flu virus, or the nasal spray, which has a weakened form of the virus. The academy has more information about the different vaccines.
Children aged 6-8 months who are getting flu vaccines for the first time should receive two doses at least 4 weeks apart. Pregnant women can get the flu vaccine any time in their pregnancy. Influenza vaccines are safe for developing fetuses, according to the academy.
The group stressed the importance of flu vaccines for high-risk and medically vulnerable children and acknowledged the need to end barriers to immunizations for all people, regardless of income or insurance coverage. In 2020, an estimated 16.1% of children in the United States were living in poverty, up from 14.4% in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Attention parents: The nation’s leading pediatric medical society is urging you to make sure your children get a flu shot this fall to prevent and control the spread of the illness.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently called on parents and caregivers to seek flu vaccines for their children as soon as they are available in the fall. The group is encouraging parents to catch up on all other vaccines for their children, too.
“As a pediatrician and a parent, I consider the flu vaccine as critical for all family members,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, said in a statement about the academy’s recommendations. “We should not underestimate the flu, especially when other respiratory viruses like COVID-19 are circulating within our communities. Besides making your child miserable and wreaking havoc on your family’s routine, influenza can also be serious and even deadly in children.”
Only 55% of children aged 6 months to 17 years had been vaccinated against influenza as of early April – down 2% from the previous April – and coverage levels were 8.1% lower for Black children compared with non-Hispanic White children, according to the CDC. In the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children in the United States died of the infection, equaling the high mark for deaths set in the 2017-2018 season, the agency reported.
American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend children aged 6 months and older be vaccinated with the flu vaccine every year. Depending on the child’s age and health, they may receive either a shot, which has an inactive version of the flu virus, or the nasal spray, which has a weakened form of the virus. The academy has more information about the different vaccines.
Children aged 6-8 months who are getting flu vaccines for the first time should receive two doses at least 4 weeks apart. Pregnant women can get the flu vaccine any time in their pregnancy. Influenza vaccines are safe for developing fetuses, according to the academy.
The group stressed the importance of flu vaccines for high-risk and medically vulnerable children and acknowledged the need to end barriers to immunizations for all people, regardless of income or insurance coverage. In 2020, an estimated 16.1% of children in the United States were living in poverty, up from 14.4% in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Attention parents: The nation’s leading pediatric medical society is urging you to make sure your children get a flu shot this fall to prevent and control the spread of the illness.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently called on parents and caregivers to seek flu vaccines for their children as soon as they are available in the fall. The group is encouraging parents to catch up on all other vaccines for their children, too.
“As a pediatrician and a parent, I consider the flu vaccine as critical for all family members,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, said in a statement about the academy’s recommendations. “We should not underestimate the flu, especially when other respiratory viruses like COVID-19 are circulating within our communities. Besides making your child miserable and wreaking havoc on your family’s routine, influenza can also be serious and even deadly in children.”
Only 55% of children aged 6 months to 17 years had been vaccinated against influenza as of early April – down 2% from the previous April – and coverage levels were 8.1% lower for Black children compared with non-Hispanic White children, according to the CDC. In the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children in the United States died of the infection, equaling the high mark for deaths set in the 2017-2018 season, the agency reported.
American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend children aged 6 months and older be vaccinated with the flu vaccine every year. Depending on the child’s age and health, they may receive either a shot, which has an inactive version of the flu virus, or the nasal spray, which has a weakened form of the virus. The academy has more information about the different vaccines.
Children aged 6-8 months who are getting flu vaccines for the first time should receive two doses at least 4 weeks apart. Pregnant women can get the flu vaccine any time in their pregnancy. Influenza vaccines are safe for developing fetuses, according to the academy.
The group stressed the importance of flu vaccines for high-risk and medically vulnerable children and acknowledged the need to end barriers to immunizations for all people, regardless of income or insurance coverage. In 2020, an estimated 16.1% of children in the United States were living in poverty, up from 14.4% in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Children and COVID: Weekly cases close out August with a second straight increase
New cases rose by 4.6% for the week of Aug. 26 to Sept. 1, following a week in which cases increased by almost 9%, as the second half of August basically reversed the two consecutive weeks of decreases during the first half of the month, based on the AAP/CHA data collected from state and territorial health departments.
Similar trends can be seen for emergency department visits, with the exception of children aged 0-11 years, whose ED visit rates have continued to fall since late July. Children aged 12-15, however, had a 7-day average of 4.4% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on Aug. 25, compared with 3.1% for Aug. 12. Children aged 16-17 years were at 3.4% on Aug. 27, compared with 3.1% as late as Aug. 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
Hospital admissions with confirmed COVID-19, reported only for children aged 0-17 years, also reflect the late-August trend of increased cases. New hospitalizations dropped from 0.46 per 100,000 population on July 30 to 0.40 per 100,000 on Aug. 19 but have since risen to 0.44 per 100,000 as of Aug. 27, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Initial vaccinations, meanwhile, have declined since early August for all children, according to a separate report from the AAP. A look at CDC data for two specific days – the first and last Mondays of the month – shows that those aged under 5 received 12,982 doses on Aug. 1, compared with 5,824 doses on Aug. 29. Over that same time, initial vaccinations in 5- to 11-year-olds went from 9,058 to 2,879, while among those aged 12-17 they dropped from 4,245 to 1,226.
Cumulatively, 5.5% of all children under age 5 had received at least one dose and 1.3% were fully vaccinated by Aug. 30, compared with 38.1% and 30.7%, respectively, of those aged 5-11 and 70.7% and 60.5% of 12- to 17-year-olds, the CDC said.
New cases rose by 4.6% for the week of Aug. 26 to Sept. 1, following a week in which cases increased by almost 9%, as the second half of August basically reversed the two consecutive weeks of decreases during the first half of the month, based on the AAP/CHA data collected from state and territorial health departments.
Similar trends can be seen for emergency department visits, with the exception of children aged 0-11 years, whose ED visit rates have continued to fall since late July. Children aged 12-15, however, had a 7-day average of 4.4% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on Aug. 25, compared with 3.1% for Aug. 12. Children aged 16-17 years were at 3.4% on Aug. 27, compared with 3.1% as late as Aug. 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
Hospital admissions with confirmed COVID-19, reported only for children aged 0-17 years, also reflect the late-August trend of increased cases. New hospitalizations dropped from 0.46 per 100,000 population on July 30 to 0.40 per 100,000 on Aug. 19 but have since risen to 0.44 per 100,000 as of Aug. 27, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Initial vaccinations, meanwhile, have declined since early August for all children, according to a separate report from the AAP. A look at CDC data for two specific days – the first and last Mondays of the month – shows that those aged under 5 received 12,982 doses on Aug. 1, compared with 5,824 doses on Aug. 29. Over that same time, initial vaccinations in 5- to 11-year-olds went from 9,058 to 2,879, while among those aged 12-17 they dropped from 4,245 to 1,226.
Cumulatively, 5.5% of all children under age 5 had received at least one dose and 1.3% were fully vaccinated by Aug. 30, compared with 38.1% and 30.7%, respectively, of those aged 5-11 and 70.7% and 60.5% of 12- to 17-year-olds, the CDC said.
New cases rose by 4.6% for the week of Aug. 26 to Sept. 1, following a week in which cases increased by almost 9%, as the second half of August basically reversed the two consecutive weeks of decreases during the first half of the month, based on the AAP/CHA data collected from state and territorial health departments.
Similar trends can be seen for emergency department visits, with the exception of children aged 0-11 years, whose ED visit rates have continued to fall since late July. Children aged 12-15, however, had a 7-day average of 4.4% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on Aug. 25, compared with 3.1% for Aug. 12. Children aged 16-17 years were at 3.4% on Aug. 27, compared with 3.1% as late as Aug. 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
Hospital admissions with confirmed COVID-19, reported only for children aged 0-17 years, also reflect the late-August trend of increased cases. New hospitalizations dropped from 0.46 per 100,000 population on July 30 to 0.40 per 100,000 on Aug. 19 but have since risen to 0.44 per 100,000 as of Aug. 27, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Initial vaccinations, meanwhile, have declined since early August for all children, according to a separate report from the AAP. A look at CDC data for two specific days – the first and last Mondays of the month – shows that those aged under 5 received 12,982 doses on Aug. 1, compared with 5,824 doses on Aug. 29. Over that same time, initial vaccinations in 5- to 11-year-olds went from 9,058 to 2,879, while among those aged 12-17 they dropped from 4,245 to 1,226.
Cumulatively, 5.5% of all children under age 5 had received at least one dose and 1.3% were fully vaccinated by Aug. 30, compared with 38.1% and 30.7%, respectively, of those aged 5-11 and 70.7% and 60.5% of 12- to 17-year-olds, the CDC said.
Reduced-lactose infant formula related to higher risk of obesity later
Doctors may want to advise parents against giving their infants lactose-reduced infant formula unless absolutely necessary, because doing so may be setting babies up for an increased risk of obesity in toddlerhood, new research shows.
Infants who drink infant formula instead of breast milk already carry an increased risk of obesity. But the new study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found a difference in types of formula and obesity outcomes for children.
Babies under 1 year who received lactose-reduced formula made partially of corn syrup solids were at a 10% greater risk (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 1.20; P = .02) of being obese by age 2 than infants who received regular cow’s milk formula.
“This is even another reason to not use a low-lactose formula,” said Mark R. Corkins, MD, division chief of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who was not involved in the study. “Parents think if babies are fussy, or they spit up, they have lactose intolerance, but if you look at the actual numbers, lactose intolerance in infants is rare.”
Actual lactose intolerance in infancy is the result of a newborn receiving the same mutated gene from both parents, called congenital lactase deficiency, said Dr. Corkins.
“The reason the low-lactose formulas are even on the market is because parents want them, and they think their kid is lactose intolerant, but they are not,” Dr. Corkins said.
Researchers from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in southern California and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, analyzed data from over 15,000 infants in southern California enrolled in WIC.
Records from infants born between Sept. 2012 and March 2016 were separated into two groups: infants that had stopped breastfeeding by month 3 and had started reduced-lactose formula and infants who received all other forms of formula. Over 80% of infants in both groups were Hispanic.
Infants who received the reduced-lactose formula with corn syrup solids were at an 8% increased risk of obesity by age 3 (RR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.15; P = .01), compared with children who received regular cow’s milk formula, and a 7% increased risk by age 4 (RR = 1.07; 95% CI; 1.01, 1.14; P = .01).
Tara Williams, MD, pediatrician and breastfeeding specialist associated with the Florida Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, said the findings should make pediatricians, parents, and others pause and consider what infant formulas contain.
She explained that babies who receive formula have higher obesity risk than babies who are breastfed overall. But research into the effects of different types of formula is relatively new. She said there may be a few reasons for the association between reduced-lactose, corn syrup solid formula and a higher risk of obesity.
“The addition of the corn syrup really starts to potentially teach that child to like sweet things,” Dr. Williams said, which in turn can lead to less healthy eating habits in childhood and adulthood.
Or, it may be that parents who tend to give their children lactose-reduced formula are less likely to be tolerant of fussy babies and end up feeding their babies more, Dr. Williams hypothesized.
In addition, emerging research shows corn syrup may act differently from other sugars in the gut microbiome and as it is metabolized in the liver, leading to weight gain.
Although parents make individual choices for what kind of formula to feed their infants, states play a large role in these choices. In 2018, 45% of babies in the United States were eligible for WIC, which is funded through the federal government but administered by states. State WIC programs request bids from formula manufacturers, and products chosen are then redeemed at retailers by parents.
“Now that we’re starting to see a signal that perhaps some formulas will have a potentially added risk of obesity for participants, states may say that when we’re helping mothers select among the formulas, we need to be very explicit about this additional risk,” said Christopher Anderson, PhD, MSPH, associate research scientist at the southern California Public Health Foundation Enterprises WIC and lead author of the study.
Dr. Williams said more research to do similar analyses in other populations is needed to draw cause and effect conclusions, while Dr. Corkins said he’d like to see more research into the amount of formula eaten and health connections to types of formula.
“We know as soon as you sign up for a baby registry at Target, you’re getting formula samples in the mail. You’re very aggressively marketed to; it’s a $55 billion industry,” Dr. Williams said. “And their goal is to sell their product – not to promote the health of infants. “This research certainly will cause us to pause and consider what we are feeding our infants in the United States and how we allow companies to market their products.”
Dr. Goran receives book royalties from Penguin Random House and is a scientific consultant for Yumi Foods and Else Nutrition. All other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Corkins reports working at a clinic that’s the site of a Takeda pharmaceutical research study. Dr. Williams reports no relevant financial relationships.
Doctors may want to advise parents against giving their infants lactose-reduced infant formula unless absolutely necessary, because doing so may be setting babies up for an increased risk of obesity in toddlerhood, new research shows.
Infants who drink infant formula instead of breast milk already carry an increased risk of obesity. But the new study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found a difference in types of formula and obesity outcomes for children.
Babies under 1 year who received lactose-reduced formula made partially of corn syrup solids were at a 10% greater risk (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 1.20; P = .02) of being obese by age 2 than infants who received regular cow’s milk formula.
“This is even another reason to not use a low-lactose formula,” said Mark R. Corkins, MD, division chief of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who was not involved in the study. “Parents think if babies are fussy, or they spit up, they have lactose intolerance, but if you look at the actual numbers, lactose intolerance in infants is rare.”
Actual lactose intolerance in infancy is the result of a newborn receiving the same mutated gene from both parents, called congenital lactase deficiency, said Dr. Corkins.
“The reason the low-lactose formulas are even on the market is because parents want them, and they think their kid is lactose intolerant, but they are not,” Dr. Corkins said.
Researchers from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in southern California and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, analyzed data from over 15,000 infants in southern California enrolled in WIC.
Records from infants born between Sept. 2012 and March 2016 were separated into two groups: infants that had stopped breastfeeding by month 3 and had started reduced-lactose formula and infants who received all other forms of formula. Over 80% of infants in both groups were Hispanic.
Infants who received the reduced-lactose formula with corn syrup solids were at an 8% increased risk of obesity by age 3 (RR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.15; P = .01), compared with children who received regular cow’s milk formula, and a 7% increased risk by age 4 (RR = 1.07; 95% CI; 1.01, 1.14; P = .01).
Tara Williams, MD, pediatrician and breastfeeding specialist associated with the Florida Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, said the findings should make pediatricians, parents, and others pause and consider what infant formulas contain.
She explained that babies who receive formula have higher obesity risk than babies who are breastfed overall. But research into the effects of different types of formula is relatively new. She said there may be a few reasons for the association between reduced-lactose, corn syrup solid formula and a higher risk of obesity.
“The addition of the corn syrup really starts to potentially teach that child to like sweet things,” Dr. Williams said, which in turn can lead to less healthy eating habits in childhood and adulthood.
Or, it may be that parents who tend to give their children lactose-reduced formula are less likely to be tolerant of fussy babies and end up feeding their babies more, Dr. Williams hypothesized.
In addition, emerging research shows corn syrup may act differently from other sugars in the gut microbiome and as it is metabolized in the liver, leading to weight gain.
Although parents make individual choices for what kind of formula to feed their infants, states play a large role in these choices. In 2018, 45% of babies in the United States were eligible for WIC, which is funded through the federal government but administered by states. State WIC programs request bids from formula manufacturers, and products chosen are then redeemed at retailers by parents.
“Now that we’re starting to see a signal that perhaps some formulas will have a potentially added risk of obesity for participants, states may say that when we’re helping mothers select among the formulas, we need to be very explicit about this additional risk,” said Christopher Anderson, PhD, MSPH, associate research scientist at the southern California Public Health Foundation Enterprises WIC and lead author of the study.
Dr. Williams said more research to do similar analyses in other populations is needed to draw cause and effect conclusions, while Dr. Corkins said he’d like to see more research into the amount of formula eaten and health connections to types of formula.
“We know as soon as you sign up for a baby registry at Target, you’re getting formula samples in the mail. You’re very aggressively marketed to; it’s a $55 billion industry,” Dr. Williams said. “And their goal is to sell their product – not to promote the health of infants. “This research certainly will cause us to pause and consider what we are feeding our infants in the United States and how we allow companies to market their products.”
Dr. Goran receives book royalties from Penguin Random House and is a scientific consultant for Yumi Foods and Else Nutrition. All other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Corkins reports working at a clinic that’s the site of a Takeda pharmaceutical research study. Dr. Williams reports no relevant financial relationships.
Doctors may want to advise parents against giving their infants lactose-reduced infant formula unless absolutely necessary, because doing so may be setting babies up for an increased risk of obesity in toddlerhood, new research shows.
Infants who drink infant formula instead of breast milk already carry an increased risk of obesity. But the new study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found a difference in types of formula and obesity outcomes for children.
Babies under 1 year who received lactose-reduced formula made partially of corn syrup solids were at a 10% greater risk (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 1.20; P = .02) of being obese by age 2 than infants who received regular cow’s milk formula.
“This is even another reason to not use a low-lactose formula,” said Mark R. Corkins, MD, division chief of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who was not involved in the study. “Parents think if babies are fussy, or they spit up, they have lactose intolerance, but if you look at the actual numbers, lactose intolerance in infants is rare.”
Actual lactose intolerance in infancy is the result of a newborn receiving the same mutated gene from both parents, called congenital lactase deficiency, said Dr. Corkins.
“The reason the low-lactose formulas are even on the market is because parents want them, and they think their kid is lactose intolerant, but they are not,” Dr. Corkins said.
Researchers from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in southern California and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, analyzed data from over 15,000 infants in southern California enrolled in WIC.
Records from infants born between Sept. 2012 and March 2016 were separated into two groups: infants that had stopped breastfeeding by month 3 and had started reduced-lactose formula and infants who received all other forms of formula. Over 80% of infants in both groups were Hispanic.
Infants who received the reduced-lactose formula with corn syrup solids were at an 8% increased risk of obesity by age 3 (RR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.15; P = .01), compared with children who received regular cow’s milk formula, and a 7% increased risk by age 4 (RR = 1.07; 95% CI; 1.01, 1.14; P = .01).
Tara Williams, MD, pediatrician and breastfeeding specialist associated with the Florida Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, said the findings should make pediatricians, parents, and others pause and consider what infant formulas contain.
She explained that babies who receive formula have higher obesity risk than babies who are breastfed overall. But research into the effects of different types of formula is relatively new. She said there may be a few reasons for the association between reduced-lactose, corn syrup solid formula and a higher risk of obesity.
“The addition of the corn syrup really starts to potentially teach that child to like sweet things,” Dr. Williams said, which in turn can lead to less healthy eating habits in childhood and adulthood.
Or, it may be that parents who tend to give their children lactose-reduced formula are less likely to be tolerant of fussy babies and end up feeding their babies more, Dr. Williams hypothesized.
In addition, emerging research shows corn syrup may act differently from other sugars in the gut microbiome and as it is metabolized in the liver, leading to weight gain.
Although parents make individual choices for what kind of formula to feed their infants, states play a large role in these choices. In 2018, 45% of babies in the United States were eligible for WIC, which is funded through the federal government but administered by states. State WIC programs request bids from formula manufacturers, and products chosen are then redeemed at retailers by parents.
“Now that we’re starting to see a signal that perhaps some formulas will have a potentially added risk of obesity for participants, states may say that when we’re helping mothers select among the formulas, we need to be very explicit about this additional risk,” said Christopher Anderson, PhD, MSPH, associate research scientist at the southern California Public Health Foundation Enterprises WIC and lead author of the study.
Dr. Williams said more research to do similar analyses in other populations is needed to draw cause and effect conclusions, while Dr. Corkins said he’d like to see more research into the amount of formula eaten and health connections to types of formula.
“We know as soon as you sign up for a baby registry at Target, you’re getting formula samples in the mail. You’re very aggressively marketed to; it’s a $55 billion industry,” Dr. Williams said. “And their goal is to sell their product – not to promote the health of infants. “This research certainly will cause us to pause and consider what we are feeding our infants in the United States and how we allow companies to market their products.”
Dr. Goran receives book royalties from Penguin Random House and is a scientific consultant for Yumi Foods and Else Nutrition. All other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Corkins reports working at a clinic that’s the site of a Takeda pharmaceutical research study. Dr. Williams reports no relevant financial relationships.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
WIC review finds broad benefits, knowledge gaps
How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.
The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.
All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.
“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”
Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.
Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
Growing evidence should drive enrollment
“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.
“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.
“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
Goals of future research
Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.
“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”
Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.
Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.
“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.
Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”
She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.
Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.
“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”
The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.
The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.
All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.
“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”
Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.
Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
Growing evidence should drive enrollment
“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.
“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.
“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
Goals of future research
Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.
“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”
Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.
Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.
“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.
Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”
She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.
Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.
“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”
The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.
The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.
All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.
“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”
Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.
Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
Growing evidence should drive enrollment
“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.
“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.
“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
Goals of future research
Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.
“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”
Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.
Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.
“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.
Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”
She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.
Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.
“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”
The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Robots better than humans at detecting mental well-being issues in children
Robots can be better at detecting mental well-being issues in children than parent-reported or self-reported testing, say U.K. researchers.
The researchers behind a new study, presented at the 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) in Naples, Italy, have suggested that robots could be a useful addition to traditional methods of mental health assessment.
“There are times when traditional methods aren’t able to catch mental well-being lapses in children, as sometimes the changes are incredibly subtle,” said Nida Itrat Abbasi, a PhD student at Cambridge (England) Affective Computing and Robotics Group, University of Cambridge, and the study’s first author. “We wanted to see whether robots might be able to help with this process,” she explained.
The authors highlighted how, during the COVID-19 pandemic, home schooling, financial pressures, and isolation from peers and friends impacted the mental health of many children. Even before the pandemic however, anxiety and depression among children in the United Kingdom has been on the rise, but the resources and support to address mental well-being are severely limited.
Children engage with robots
For their study the research team – which comprised roboticists, computer scientists, and psychiatrists from the University of Cambridge – enrolled 28 participants between ages 8 and 13 years. While being observed from an adjacent room by a parent or guardian, along with members of the research team, the participants took part in a one-to-one 45-minute session with a Nao robot – a humanoid robot about 60 cm tall – that administered a series of standard psychological questionnaires to assess the mental well-being of each participant.
Participants interacted with the robot throughout the session by speaking with it or by touching sensors on the robot’s hands and feet. Additional sensors tracked participants’ heartbeat, head, and eye movements during the session.
Professor Hatice Gunes, affective intelligence and robotics laboratory, department of computer science, University of Cambridge, said: “Children are quite tactile, and they’re drawn to technology. If they’re using a screen-based tool, they’re withdrawn from the physical world,” she said. “But robots are perfect because they’re in the physical world – they’re more interactive, so the children are more engaged.”
Prior to each session the children and their parent or guardian completed standard online questionnaires to assess each child’s mental well-being.
During each session, the robot performed four different tasks:
- Asked open-ended questions about happy and sad memories over the last week.
- Administered the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ).
- Administered a picture task inspired by the Children’s Apperception Test (CAT), where children are asked to answer questions related to pictures shown.
- Administered the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS) for generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and low mood.
Following the SMFQ children were divided into three different groups according to how likely they were to be struggling with their mental well-being.
The researchers found that children with varying levels of well-being concerns interacted differently with the robot. For children that might not be experiencing mental well-being–related problems, the researchers found that interacting with the robot led to more positive response ratings to the questionnaires. However, for children that might be experiencing well-being–related concerns, the robot may have enabled them to divulge their true feelings and experiences, leading to more negative response ratings to the questionnaire.
Robots an addition not a replacement
“Since the robot we use is child-sized, and completely nonthreatening, children might see the robot as a confidant – they feel like they won’t get into trouble if they share secrets with it,” said Ms. Abbasi. “Other researchers have found that children are more likely to divulge private information – like that they’re being bullied, for example – to a robot than they would be to an adult,” she said.
Study participants all said they “enjoyed talking with the robot,” commented the authors, who added that, “the children were willing to confide in the robot, in some cases sharing information with the robot that they had not yet shared via the standard assessment method of online or in-person questionnaires.”
This is the first time that robots have been used to assess mental well-being in children, the researchers pointed out. “Robots could be a useful addition to traditional methods of mental health assessment,” they said, though they emphasized that robots are “not intended to be a substitute for professional mental health support.”
“We don’t have any intention of replacing psychologists or other mental health professionals with robots, since their expertise far surpasses anything a robot can do,” said Dr. Micol Spitale, affective computing and robotics laboratory, University of Cambridge, and study coauthor. “However, our work suggests that robots could be a useful tool in helping children to open up and share things they might not be comfortable sharing at first.”
The researchers say that they hope to expand their survey in future by including more participants and following them over time. They are also investigating whether similar results could be achieved if children interact with the robot via video chat.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Robots can be better at detecting mental well-being issues in children than parent-reported or self-reported testing, say U.K. researchers.
The researchers behind a new study, presented at the 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) in Naples, Italy, have suggested that robots could be a useful addition to traditional methods of mental health assessment.
“There are times when traditional methods aren’t able to catch mental well-being lapses in children, as sometimes the changes are incredibly subtle,” said Nida Itrat Abbasi, a PhD student at Cambridge (England) Affective Computing and Robotics Group, University of Cambridge, and the study’s first author. “We wanted to see whether robots might be able to help with this process,” she explained.
The authors highlighted how, during the COVID-19 pandemic, home schooling, financial pressures, and isolation from peers and friends impacted the mental health of many children. Even before the pandemic however, anxiety and depression among children in the United Kingdom has been on the rise, but the resources and support to address mental well-being are severely limited.
Children engage with robots
For their study the research team – which comprised roboticists, computer scientists, and psychiatrists from the University of Cambridge – enrolled 28 participants between ages 8 and 13 years. While being observed from an adjacent room by a parent or guardian, along with members of the research team, the participants took part in a one-to-one 45-minute session with a Nao robot – a humanoid robot about 60 cm tall – that administered a series of standard psychological questionnaires to assess the mental well-being of each participant.
Participants interacted with the robot throughout the session by speaking with it or by touching sensors on the robot’s hands and feet. Additional sensors tracked participants’ heartbeat, head, and eye movements during the session.
Professor Hatice Gunes, affective intelligence and robotics laboratory, department of computer science, University of Cambridge, said: “Children are quite tactile, and they’re drawn to technology. If they’re using a screen-based tool, they’re withdrawn from the physical world,” she said. “But robots are perfect because they’re in the physical world – they’re more interactive, so the children are more engaged.”
Prior to each session the children and their parent or guardian completed standard online questionnaires to assess each child’s mental well-being.
During each session, the robot performed four different tasks:
- Asked open-ended questions about happy and sad memories over the last week.
- Administered the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ).
- Administered a picture task inspired by the Children’s Apperception Test (CAT), where children are asked to answer questions related to pictures shown.
- Administered the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS) for generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and low mood.
Following the SMFQ children were divided into three different groups according to how likely they were to be struggling with their mental well-being.
The researchers found that children with varying levels of well-being concerns interacted differently with the robot. For children that might not be experiencing mental well-being–related problems, the researchers found that interacting with the robot led to more positive response ratings to the questionnaires. However, for children that might be experiencing well-being–related concerns, the robot may have enabled them to divulge their true feelings and experiences, leading to more negative response ratings to the questionnaire.
Robots an addition not a replacement
“Since the robot we use is child-sized, and completely nonthreatening, children might see the robot as a confidant – they feel like they won’t get into trouble if they share secrets with it,” said Ms. Abbasi. “Other researchers have found that children are more likely to divulge private information – like that they’re being bullied, for example – to a robot than they would be to an adult,” she said.
Study participants all said they “enjoyed talking with the robot,” commented the authors, who added that, “the children were willing to confide in the robot, in some cases sharing information with the robot that they had not yet shared via the standard assessment method of online or in-person questionnaires.”
This is the first time that robots have been used to assess mental well-being in children, the researchers pointed out. “Robots could be a useful addition to traditional methods of mental health assessment,” they said, though they emphasized that robots are “not intended to be a substitute for professional mental health support.”
“We don’t have any intention of replacing psychologists or other mental health professionals with robots, since their expertise far surpasses anything a robot can do,” said Dr. Micol Spitale, affective computing and robotics laboratory, University of Cambridge, and study coauthor. “However, our work suggests that robots could be a useful tool in helping children to open up and share things they might not be comfortable sharing at first.”
The researchers say that they hope to expand their survey in future by including more participants and following them over time. They are also investigating whether similar results could be achieved if children interact with the robot via video chat.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Robots can be better at detecting mental well-being issues in children than parent-reported or self-reported testing, say U.K. researchers.
The researchers behind a new study, presented at the 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) in Naples, Italy, have suggested that robots could be a useful addition to traditional methods of mental health assessment.
“There are times when traditional methods aren’t able to catch mental well-being lapses in children, as sometimes the changes are incredibly subtle,” said Nida Itrat Abbasi, a PhD student at Cambridge (England) Affective Computing and Robotics Group, University of Cambridge, and the study’s first author. “We wanted to see whether robots might be able to help with this process,” she explained.
The authors highlighted how, during the COVID-19 pandemic, home schooling, financial pressures, and isolation from peers and friends impacted the mental health of many children. Even before the pandemic however, anxiety and depression among children in the United Kingdom has been on the rise, but the resources and support to address mental well-being are severely limited.
Children engage with robots
For their study the research team – which comprised roboticists, computer scientists, and psychiatrists from the University of Cambridge – enrolled 28 participants between ages 8 and 13 years. While being observed from an adjacent room by a parent or guardian, along with members of the research team, the participants took part in a one-to-one 45-minute session with a Nao robot – a humanoid robot about 60 cm tall – that administered a series of standard psychological questionnaires to assess the mental well-being of each participant.
Participants interacted with the robot throughout the session by speaking with it or by touching sensors on the robot’s hands and feet. Additional sensors tracked participants’ heartbeat, head, and eye movements during the session.
Professor Hatice Gunes, affective intelligence and robotics laboratory, department of computer science, University of Cambridge, said: “Children are quite tactile, and they’re drawn to technology. If they’re using a screen-based tool, they’re withdrawn from the physical world,” she said. “But robots are perfect because they’re in the physical world – they’re more interactive, so the children are more engaged.”
Prior to each session the children and their parent or guardian completed standard online questionnaires to assess each child’s mental well-being.
During each session, the robot performed four different tasks:
- Asked open-ended questions about happy and sad memories over the last week.
- Administered the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ).
- Administered a picture task inspired by the Children’s Apperception Test (CAT), where children are asked to answer questions related to pictures shown.
- Administered the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS) for generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and low mood.
Following the SMFQ children were divided into three different groups according to how likely they were to be struggling with their mental well-being.
The researchers found that children with varying levels of well-being concerns interacted differently with the robot. For children that might not be experiencing mental well-being–related problems, the researchers found that interacting with the robot led to more positive response ratings to the questionnaires. However, for children that might be experiencing well-being–related concerns, the robot may have enabled them to divulge their true feelings and experiences, leading to more negative response ratings to the questionnaire.
Robots an addition not a replacement
“Since the robot we use is child-sized, and completely nonthreatening, children might see the robot as a confidant – they feel like they won’t get into trouble if they share secrets with it,” said Ms. Abbasi. “Other researchers have found that children are more likely to divulge private information – like that they’re being bullied, for example – to a robot than they would be to an adult,” she said.
Study participants all said they “enjoyed talking with the robot,” commented the authors, who added that, “the children were willing to confide in the robot, in some cases sharing information with the robot that they had not yet shared via the standard assessment method of online or in-person questionnaires.”
This is the first time that robots have been used to assess mental well-being in children, the researchers pointed out. “Robots could be a useful addition to traditional methods of mental health assessment,” they said, though they emphasized that robots are “not intended to be a substitute for professional mental health support.”
“We don’t have any intention of replacing psychologists or other mental health professionals with robots, since their expertise far surpasses anything a robot can do,” said Dr. Micol Spitale, affective computing and robotics laboratory, University of Cambridge, and study coauthor. “However, our work suggests that robots could be a useful tool in helping children to open up and share things they might not be comfortable sharing at first.”
The researchers say that they hope to expand their survey in future by including more participants and following them over time. They are also investigating whether similar results could be achieved if children interact with the robot via video chat.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.