Sunday, 2 October 2011

Women With A Higher Social Standing And Educational Attainment Breastfeed For Longer

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 30 Sep 2011 - 1:00 PDT email icon email to a friendprinter icon printer friendlywrite icon opinions

Current Article Ratings:


Patient / Public: not yet rated
Healthcare Prof: not yet rated

New research analyses maternal breastfeeding in Spain throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Experts believe that its development is associated with socio-demographic factors such as the advice of healthcare professionals, longer maternity leave, a woman's integration into the workplace and her level of education.

"Up until not long ago, maternal breastfeeding was vital for infant survival but things have changed in the second half of the twentieth century. This is mainly due to the arrival of artificial lactation," explains Juan Ram�n Ordo�ana, researcher at the University of Murcia, Spain and lead author of the study.

Published in the Journal of Human Lactation, the study analyses how maternal breastfeeding rates have evolved in the region of Murcia and, indeed, the rest of Spain, in recent decades and whether women who had children in the 1960's behaved in the same way as those who had children in the 1980's or 1990's.

The average time that a mother breastfeeds has changed over the studied period. Ordo�ana confirms that "what our results show is a U-shaped graph. Women breastfed for longer periods of time in the 1960's (61.3% for longer than six months) and 1990's (29% also for longer than six months) whereas the shortest periods occurred in the 1970's and 1980's (14.4% and 19.2% respectively).

Researchers studied 666 women who had been first time mothers from a period starting in the 1960's and ending in the 1990's. As well as gathering information on the child's diet, experts collected socio-demographic data with particular focus on the mother's educational attainment.

Ordo�ana outlines that "the effect of greater educational attainment on the duration of the breastfeeding period is not always the same and it very much depends on social context."

As such, women with medium and high educational attainment displayed drastically shorter breastfeeding periods at the beginning of the 1970's and the rates that correspond to this group where almost on a par with those of woman with lower education attainment in the 1970's and 1980's. However, a subsequent steady increase of 3.4% each year was experienced and this trend remained until the end of the 1990's.

Researchers attribute these results to the fact that women with higher educational attainment follow the advice of healthcare professionals with greater ease in relation to the benefits of maternal breastfeeding. They emphasise that "providing the mother wishes to breastfeed, working conditions, economic status and greater access to healthcare services probably help to maintain breastfeeding levels."

The significance of social change

The study suggests that the results are linked to the social changes of the time and the impact that they had on women. For instance, large family structures in which different generations of women live together and help one another in the "art of lactating" have given way to the nuclear family where the woman increasingly leans on her partner for emotional and instrumental support, rather than on other women.

Equally, experts associate this change with the progressive integration of woman into the workplace, the movement towards all things natural that was experienced at the end of the 1990's, the increase of maternity leaves and a large number of sociocultural factors that influence women before they even have their children.

Furthermore, with regard to the diet of newborns, the advice of healthcare professionals leaned towards artificial lactation in the 1970's and 1980's and then shifted towards encouraging breastfeeding. This change was due to the discovery of the health benefits that breastfeeding can bring as well as the advice of the World Health Organisation who recommends that breastfeeding should last for a minimum of 6 months

Plataforma SINC

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Plataforma SINC. "Women With A Higher Social Standing And Educational Attainment Breastfeed For Longer." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 30 Sep. 2011. Web.
2 Oct. 2011. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/235248.php>


APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


Rate this article:
(Hover over the stars then click to rate)
Patient / Public:
or Health Professional:

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.


Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/235248.php

women health check up women to women health care women health and fitness womens health

The 10 Dirtiest Foods

health:blogDotted Line
DIRTY FOODS

Foods that could be harmful to your health

ALEXANDRA DURON


It isn't just the germaphobes who need to worry about tainted food making its way into our kitchens and onto our plates. Rodale.com sifted through tests from Consumers Union, studies by Consumer Reports, estimates from the Center for Science and Public Interest, and research results from USDA, FDA and CDC to figure out what foods are most likely to be contaminated.

Watch out for these suspect grocery store items the next time you go food shopping:

  • Chicken
  • Ground Beef
  • Ground Turkey
  • Raw Oysters
  • Eggs
  • Cantaloupe
  • Peaches
  • Prepackaged Lettuce
  • Cold Cuts
  • Sprouts

It seems like no matter our diets, none of us are completely safe from most of the above list. Find out why these foods can be dangerous and what simple steps you can take to avoid food poisoning.

  • Average User Rating:
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *

Source: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/dirty-foods

womens health health women womens issues

Saturday, 1 October 2011

Tabex smoking drug shows promise

An anti-smoking drug called Tabex may ?boost a person?s chances of ditching cigarettes three-fold,? The Sun reported.

The�smoking cessation drug, also known as cytisine, has been available in some Eastern European and former Soviet countries, such as Russia, for more than 40 years. However, the researchers of this study said that the drug has not previously been tested in a way that would meet modern regulatory standards, which all drugs must satisfy before they can be marketed in the UK. To test the effectiveness of the drug, the researchers performed a study using 740 volunteers who were either given the drug or a dummy (placebo) drug for 25 days. They found that 12 months after treatment, 8.4% of participants taking cytisine had successfully quit, compared to 2.4% of participants taking the placebo. This equated to an extra 6% of people giving up smoking, a performance comparable to existing approved treatments.

As well as producing promising results, the drug is reported to be inexpensive, which singles it out as a potential future treatment within the UK. However, given that the trial was relatively small and short it is likely that more research will be needed to confirm its effectiveness and safety before regulators can approve its use.

The organisation that oversees drug licensing in the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), says it has not recieved an application to license Tabex. The MHRA says: "Whilst we welcome new applications for promising medicines for use in the UK, it?s imperative that the product?s safety, quality and effectiveness is assessed to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks. It would be wrong to assume that the product has no known harmful side effect. All medicines have side effects ? no effective medicine is without any risk."

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from University College London, the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies and the Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Poland. It was funded by the UK?s National Prevention Research Initiative and published in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. The trial itself was conducted at the smoking cessation clinic of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre in Warsaw, Poland.

The news coverage of this story was mainly accurate. However, it should be noted that while cytisine has not been ?banned? as one headline said, it does not have a licence to market in the UK.

What kind of research was this?

This was a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The researchers said that cytisine has been available in Bulgaria since 1964 and is commercially available in countries such as Poland and Russia for approximately US $6-$15 per course of treatment. However, they said that despite the drug?s widespread use there have not yet been any large placebo-controlled trials that would adhere to modern regulatory standards. This study was performed to fulfil this requirement.

What did the research involve?

The researchers enrolled 740 individuals who smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day, and who were willing to attempt to stop smoking permanently. They were randomised to receive either cytisine or a placebo pill (370 in each group). The participants took cytisine or the placebo for 25 days, and were then assessed 6 and 12 months after the treatment period had ended to determine whether they had managed to give up smoking or if they had relapsed. The participants agreed prior to the trial not to take any other medications to stop smoking. Both groups received a minimal amount of counselling during the study.

During the 25-day treatment period, the participants followed a treatment schedule that has been licensed in several European countries, where the number of tablets taken decreased over time:

  • 1-3 days: six 1.5mg tablets a day (one tablet every two hours)
  • 4-12 days: five tablets a day for�nine days
  • 13-16 days: four tablets a day for�four days
  • 17-20 days: three tablets a day for�four days
  • 21-25 days: two tablets a day for�five days

Participants were contacted 6 and 12 months after their treatment had ended and asked whether they had given up smoking. A ?relapse? was defined as self-reported smoking of five or more cigarettes during the specified follow-up period (the previous 6 or 12 months). The carbon monoxide concentration in exhaled breath was measured for participants who reported that they had given up smoking, to confirm their reports.

The participants were also asked whether they had experienced any side-effects, and if so, to describe them. The researchers then coded the responses they received.

The researchers then analysed their results on the ?intention-to-treat principle?, meaning that they analysed their results based on all the people that were originally randomised in the study, rather than just those they could contact. They considered treatment to have failed in any participants that they could not contact at the follow-up points.

What were the basic results?

Results after 12 months showed that 8.4% of the participants randomised to receive cytisine had not relapsed (in other words, had successfully quit smoking), compared to 2.4% of the participants randomised to receive placebo. This was a difference of 6% (95% CI 2.7% to 9.2%), which equated to people taking cytisine being 3.4 times more likely to give up than those taking a placebo (95% CI 1.7 to 7.1).

The researchers report that this increase in the�rate of giving up smoking is higher than that reported for the existing drug vareniciline (smokers taking varenicline are 2.3 times more likely to quit than those taking a placebo) and nicotine-replacement therapy (1.6 times more likely). However, the absolute difference in rate (in this case 6%) was lower than that shown for vareniciline, and similar to that shown for nicotine-replacement therapy. Some differences may be due to the length of the treatment period: only 4 weeks in this trial but 8 weeks for nicotine-replacement therapy and 12 weeks for vareniciline.

Gastrointestinal (stomach and intestine) side effects, predominantly stomach-ache, dry mouth, dyspepsia and nausea, were reported significantly more frequently in participants receiving cytisine (13.8%) than those receiving placebo (8.1%). There were no other side effects, which were significantly more frequent in the group receiving cytisine. The two groups�had similar rates of drug discontinuation and dose reduction.

Although this study only lasted 12 months and was not large enough for an assessment of uncommon adverse events, the researchers report that the latest Periodic Safety Update Report provided to the European Authorities, based on more than 7 million exposed persons, did not identify any safety signals: in other words, the drug is considered safe.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers said: ?In this single-centre study, cytisine was more effective than placebo for smoking cessation. The lower price of cytisine, as compared with that of other pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation, make it an affordable treatment to advance smoking cessation globally.?

Conclusion

In this promising 12-month trial (involving a treatment period of 25 days), 8.4% of participants taking cytisine (brand name Tabex) managed to give up cigarettes, compared�with 2.4% of participants taking placebo. This means that the participants taking cytisine were more than three times more likely to give up.

Although individuals in the group receiving cytisine experienced more gastrointestinal side-effects, the researchers said that other uncommon side effects are unlikely as this drug has been available in other countries for more than 40 years.

Other points to note are that:

  • The trial was not large enough to assess the uncommon adverse events that could occur with the drug. Because the drug is in the same class as others linked to neuropsychiatric side effects and suicidal ideas, the researchers recommend continued surveillance of the 7 million people reported to be taking it.
  • Compared to the therapies currently available in the UK, the number of extra people who are able to quit after taking cytisine is similar to those who can quit with nicotine-replacement therapy, although the course of treatment tested here is shorter. Specific research to compare it against treatments currently available in the UK may be warranted, along with studies of longer courses of the drug.
  • In this study, the participants were given minimal behavioural support, such as counselling. The researchers suggest that combining cytisine with more intensive behavioural support could potentially increase the absolute quit rates.

Overall, this paper will generate discussion about how cytisine might fit into the range of treatments currently available, although more research is likely to be needed before the drug is approved.

Links To The Headlines

Quit smoking for six quid. The Sun, September 29 2011

Smokers get chance to beat the habit with 12p tablets. The Guardian, September 29 2011

Banned: The 12p 'cure' for smokers not to be made available in Britain. The Metro, September 29 2011

Links To Science

West R, Zatonski W, Cedzynska M et al. Placebo-Controlled Trial of Cytisine for Smoking Cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 2011; 365:1193-1200, September 29�2011

Source: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/09September/Pages/tabex-cytisine-quit-smoking-pill.aspx

womens health vitamins women reproductive health issues women health check up women to women health care

[CDC, Office of Women's Health, Health Matters for Women] Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Women-United States, 2010-11 Influenza Season

Women are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality from influenza during pregnancy (1). Vaccinating pregnant women for influenza can protect both the women and their infants, especially infants aged <6 months who are not old enough to receive influenza vaccination (2--4). Since 2004, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have recommended inactivated influenza vaccine for all women who are pregnant during influenza season, regardless of trimester (1,5). Before 2009, estimated influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women had been consistently low (approximately 15%) (1,5). However, vaccination levels increased substantially in response to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic to nearly 50% (6--7). To estimate influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women for the 2010--11 season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted in April 2011 among women who were pregnant any time during October 2010--January 2011. Among 1,457 survey respondents, 49% reported that they had received influenza vaccination: 12% were vaccinated before pregnancy, 32% during pregnancy, and 5% after pregnancy. Women offered influenza vaccination by a health-care provider (62%) were more likely to be vaccinated (71%) than other women (14%) and were more likely to have positive attitudes about vaccine effectiveness and safety. These results indicate that the higher vaccination level achieved the previous season (2009--10) was sustained and emphasize the critical role of health-care providers in promoting influenza vaccination. Continued efforts are needed to encourage health-care providers to strongly recommend and offer influenza vaccination to pregnant patients to protect both the mothers and their infants.

CDC conducted an Internet panel survey during April 4--25, 2011, to provide end-of-season estimates of influenza vaccination coverage and information on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to influenza vaccination among pregnant women. Women aged 18--49 years who were pregnant at any time since August 1, 2010, were recruited from the SurveySpot panel operated by Survey Sampling International.* Of all panel members contacted in April 2011, a total of 2,126 were determined to be eligible for the survey, and 1,937 (91%) completed the online survey. The sample was weighted to reflect the age and race/ethnicity distribution based on census region estimates from the U.S. population of pregnant women (8). To be consistent with a previous study (6), the study population was limited to 1,457 women reporting pregnancy at any time during the peak influenza vaccination period (October 2010--January 2011).

Survey respondents were asked if they had an influenza vaccination since August 1, 2010, and if yes, in which month and whether it was before, during, or after pregnancy. Pregnancy status questions included whether respondents were currently pregnant or pregnant at any time since August 1, 2010, and if so, what were the actual months of pregnancy. Respondents who were pregnant at the time of the survey were asked their expected delivery date. All respondents were asked if their doctor or other health professional had offered them influenza vaccination during an office visit and their attitudes toward influenza and influenza vaccination. Weighted analyses were conducted using statistical software. Confidence intervals were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess statistical significance of differences in vaccination coverage levels between subgroups.

Of the 1,457 women pregnant at any time during October 2010--January 2011, 49% reported influenza vaccination for the 2010--11 season: 12% were vaccinated before pregnancy, 32% during pregnancy, and 5% after pregnancy. Vaccination after pregnancy was more prevalent for women delivering early in the vaccination period, and vaccination before pregnancy was more prevalent among women who were in earlier stages of pregnancy later in the vaccination period (Figure). Younger women (aged 18--24 years) were less likely to be vaccinated than older women (aged 25--49 years) (44% versus 52%) (Table 1). College graduates were more likely to be vaccinated than those with less education. Women with health insurance coverage also were more likely to report influenza vaccination compared with those who were not insured.

Overall, 62% of women reported that they were offered influenza vaccination by their health-care providers; among those offered vaccination, 71% received influenza vaccination, substantially higher than the 14% vaccination level among women whose health-care providers did not offer vaccination (Table 1). Forty-five percent of women reported influenza vaccination in a previous influenza season, and these women were four times as likely to report 2010--11 vaccination as women without previous vaccination (84% versus 21%).

Compared with women whose health-care provider did not offer vaccination, women who received a health-care provider offer were more likely to have positive attitudes about the effectiveness of influenza vaccination (82% versus 54%), safety of influenza vaccination for pregnant women (78% versus 53%), and safety of vaccination for their infants (75% versus 47%) (Table 2). In addition, women who received a health-care provider offer consistently had higher vaccination levels than those who did not receive a health-care provider offer, regardless of their perceptions of vaccination safety or effectiveness expressed in April 2011. Moreover, women with a negative attitude toward vaccination who had received a health-care provider offer of vaccination were more likely to be vaccinated than women who had a positive attitude without a health-care provider offer.

The top five "main" reasons for not receiving influenza vaccination were "I am concerned about possible safety risks to my baby if I got vaccinated" (20%), "I am concerned that the vaccination would give me the flu" (17%), "I don't think the vaccination is effective in preventing flu" (14%), "I am concerned about possible safety risk to myself if I got vaccinated" (11%), and either "I don't think I would get very sick if I got the flu" or "I think if I get the flu, I will just get some medication to treat it" (14%).

The majority of women who were vaccinated during pregnancy received vaccination at their obstetrician/gynecologist or midwife's office (61%), followed by another doctor's office or another medical-related place (22%), a pharmacy or grocery store (8%), health department (5%), and their workplace or school (5%). Among women vaccinated either before or after pregnancy, 18% were vaccinated in an obstetrician/gynecologist or midwife's office, and 61% in another doctor's office or another medical-related place.

Reported by

Deborah K Walker, EdD, Sarah Ball, ScD, Robert Black, MPH, David Izrael, MS, Abt Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Helen Ding, MD, Gary L. Euler, DrPH, James A. Singleton, MS, Carolyn B. Bridges, MD, Immunization Svc Div, Lisa A. Grohskopf, MD, Influenza Div, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Denise J. Jamieson, MD, Div of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Corresponding contributor: Helen Ding, hding@cdc.gov, 404-639-8513.

Editorial Note

Results from this survey indicate that the record high influenza vaccination levels among pregnant women reported for the previous influenza season (2009--10) were sustained during the 2010--11 season. During 2009--10, pregnant women were included in the initial target groups to receive the inactivated 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine, and CDC worked closely with key partners, especially the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to increase awareness that pregnant women were at increased risk for severe illness from influenza and were recommended for influenza vaccination to protect themselves and their infants (9). However, vaccination levels are still below the Healthy People 2020 target of 80% influenza vaccination coverage for pregnant women.?

This study found that women who received a health-care provider offer were more likely to believe influenza vaccination was effective, protective, and safe for themselves and their infants, and were nearly five times more likely to report receipt of vaccination compared with those who visited a doctor but did not receive an offer of vaccination. Pregnant women who had previously received influenza vaccination were four times more likely to receive influenza vaccination compared with those without a prior history of influenza vaccination. Because influenza vaccination is now recommended for all persons aged ?6 months (1), further implementation of the universal vaccination recommendation among women of childbearing age might help to increase the likelihood of influenza vaccination before and during pregnancy.

Pregnant women who receive regular prenatal care have many more opportunities for a health-care provider offer of influenza vaccination than nonpregnant women. However, nearly four out of 10 women in this survey did not receive an offer of vaccination even though they visited a health-care provider at least one time. Barriers to providing influenza vaccination in health-care providers' offices identified by previous studies include lack of infrastructure for vaccine storage, lack of training for nurses to administer vaccines, and concern about safety and related lawsuits for vaccinating first trimester women (10). Another finding of this study was that women still reported safety risk to their infant as the most common main reason for refusing influenza vaccination, even though influenza vaccination during pregnancy can protect women and their infants (2--4). This study also indicated that a substantial proportion of women who delivered early in the influenza season received their vaccination after delivery. Vaccination of members of households with an infant aged <6 months is important for minimizing influenza risk for the upcoming influenza season.

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, selection bias might remain after weighting adjustments, given the exclusion of women with no Internet access and the self-selection processes for entry into the panel and participation in the survey. However, influenza vaccination coverage estimated from this study, restricted to women who were pregnant at any time during December 2010 (48%), was similar to the coverage estimates based on December 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) interviews of women who were pregnant at that time (51%) (CDC, unpublished data, 2011). BRFSS is a telephone survey and also might be subject to selection bias because of exclusion of households without landline telephone service. Pregnant women account for only 1% of the general population, and conducting a random-digit--dialing survey or a mail survey large enough to obtain an adequate sample size would be costly and time-consuming. The similar estimate from BRFSS provides more evidence to support the use of Internet panels as useful surveillance data sources for timely midseason and postseason evaluation of influenza vaccination among pregnant women. Second, the survey was self-administered, and because pregnancy and vaccination status were not validated by medical record review, all responses are subject to recall and reporting error.

This study found that the higher vaccination level achieved during the 2009--10 influenza season (the fall wave of 2009 H1N1 virus activity) among pregnant women was repeated the following season, and identified key elements highly associated with pregnant women's acceptance of influenza vaccination, such as the health-care provider offer of vaccination and past receipt of influenza vaccination. Continued efforts are needed to encourage health-care providers to strongly recommend and offer influenza vaccination to their pregnant patients. Additional efforts are needed to remove barriers for health-care providers to administer influenza vaccination as part of routine practice. Messages to pregnant women from health-care providers and others should emphasize the safety and effectiveness of maternal influenza vaccination to maximize protection of pregnant patients and their infants.

Acknowledgments

John Boyle, PhD, Chuck Shuttles, Abt SRBI, Inc., Washington, DC. Peng-jun Lu, MD, Leah N Bryan, MPH, Immunization Svc Div, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC.

References

  1. CDC. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR 2010;59(No. RR-8).
  2. Eick AA, Uyeki TM, Klimov A, et al. Maternal influenza vaccination and effect on influenza virus infection in young infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:104--11.
  3. Zaman K, Roy E, Arifeen SE, et al. Effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization in mothers and infants. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1555--64.
  4. Poehling KA, Szilagyi PG, Staat MA, et al., Impact of maternal immunization on influenza hospitalizations in infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(6 Suppl 1):S141--8.
  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Influenza vaccination and treatment during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104(5 pt 1):1125--6.
  6. Ding H, Santibanez TA, Jamieson DJ, et al. Influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women---National 2009 H1N1 Flu Survey (NHFS). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(6 Suppl 1):S96--106.
  7. CDC. Seasonal influenza and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women---10 states, 2009--10 influenza season. MMWR 2010;59:1541--5.
  8. CDC. Estimated pregnancy rates for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
  9. Rasmussen SA, Kissin DM, Yeung LF, et al; Pandemic Influenza and Pregnancy Working Group. Preparing for influenza after 2009 H1N1: special considerations for pregnant women and newborns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(6 Suppl 1):S13--20.
  10. Naleway AL, Smith WJ, Mullooly JP. Delivering influenza vaccine to pregnant women. Epidemiol Rev 2006;28:47--53.


What is already known on this topic?

Pregnant women are recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to receive influenza vaccination regardless of trimester. Vaccination coverage among pregnant women was approximately 50% for the 2009--10 season, much higher than coverage reported for previous influenza seasons. Health-care provider recommendation is strongly associated with vaccination among pregnant women.

What is added by this report?

Approximately 49% of pregnant women in an Internet panel survey were vaccinated for influenza for the 2010--11 influenza season; 32% were vaccinated during pregnancy, and 17% before pregnancy or after delivery. Among the 62% of pregnant women who received a health-care provider offer for influenza vaccination, nearly three quarters were vaccinated, which was five times the coverage among those who didn't receive a health-care provider offer.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Continued efforts are needed to 1) encourage health-care providers to strongly recommend and offer inactivated influenza vaccination to their pregnant patients and 2) remove barriers for health-care providers to administer influenza vaccination as part of routine practice. Messages to pregnant women from health-care providers and others should emphasize the safety and effectiveness of maternal influenza vaccination to maximize protection of pregnant patients and their infants.


FIGURE. Percentage of women aged 18--49 years pregnant at any time during October 2010--January 2011 (N = 1,457) who received influenza vaccination before, during, or after pregnancy for the 2010--11 influenza season, by month of delivery or expected month of delivery --- United States, Internet panel survey, April 2011

Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of women aged 18-49 years pregnant at any time during October 2010-January 2011 (N = 1,457) who received influenza vaccination before, during, or after pregnancy for the 2010-11 influenza season, by month of delivery or expected month of delivery, in the United States, based on results of an Internet panel survey conducted in April 2011. Vaccination after pregnancy was more prevalent for women delivering early in the vaccination period, and vaccination before pregnancy was more prevalent among women who were in earlier stages of pregnancy later in the vaccination period.


Characteristic

Sample

Vaccination coverage*

No.

%?

(95% CI)

%

(95% CI)

Overall

1,457

---

---

49.0

(�2.8)

Age group (yrs)

18--24

504

34.5

(�2.6)

43.6

(�4.6)

?25

953

65.5

(�2.6)

51.8

(�3.5)

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic

195

21.7

(�2.7)

53.2

(�7.3)

White, non-Hispanic

977

56.3

(�2.9)

46.5

(�3.3)

Black, non-Hispanic

200

16.5

(�2.1)

47.1

(�7.2)

Other

84

5.5

(�1.2)

63.8

(�10.9)

Education

<College graduation

890

63.3

(�2.7)

43.4

(�3.6)

College graduate

441

30.2

(�2.6)

54.9

(�5.1)

>College graduation

93

6.5

(�1.4)

66.9

(�10.7)

Marital status

Married

567

40.9

(�2.8)

53.6

(�3.6)

Not married

890

59.1

(�2.7)

42.3

(�4.4)

Working status

Working

830

56.6

(�2.8)

54.6

(�4.2)

Not working

625

43.4

(�2.7)

44.6

(�3.7)

Health insurance coverage (at interview)

Any public

656

46.2

(�2.8)

46.2

(�4.1)

Private/military

688

46.1

(�2.8)

54.1

(�4.1)

None

113

7.8

(�1.5)

35.0

(�9.4)

Had influenza vaccination in previous season

Yes

644

44.8

(�2.8)

83.5

(�3.0)

No

813

55.2

(�2.7)

20.9

(�3.0)

Other high-risk conditions**

Yes

354

26.3

(�2.5)

58.2

(�5.6)

No

1,103

73.7

(�2.5)

45.7

(�3.2)

Offered influenza vaccination??

Yes

836

61.7

(�2.8)

70.8

(�3.3)

No

512

38.3

(�2.8)

14.4

(�3.1)


Response

Sample distribution

Vaccination coverage*

Offer? (n = 836)

No offer (n = 512)

Offer (n = 836)

No offer (n = 512)

No.

%

(95% CI)

No.

%

(95% CI)

%

(95% CI)

%

(95% CI)

Flu vaccine is somewhat/very effective in preventing flu

Yes

576

81.9

(�3.1)

168

53.8

(�6.0)

86.7**

(�3.0)

36.1**

(�7.6)

No

132

18.1

(�3.1)

147

46.2

(�5.9)

46.2

(�9.4)

4.5

(�3.4)

Agree/strongly agree that if a pregnant woman receives the flu vaccination, it will protect the baby from getting the flu after it is born

Yes

431

52.5

(�3.7)

146

29.0

(�4.3)

81.1**

(�3.9)

24.7**

(�7.4)

No

404

47.5

(�3.7)

364

71.0

(�4.2)

59.6

(�5.3)

10.4

(�3.2)

Flu vaccination is somewhat/very/completely safe for most adult women

Yes

774

92.6

(�1.9)

428

83.2

(�3.5)

73.6**

(�3.3)

16.1**

(�3.6)

No

61

7.4

(�2.0)

82

16.8

(�3.5)

39.0

(�13.3)

6.7

(�6.0)

Flu vaccination is somewhat/very/completely safe for pregnant women

Yes

645

77.8

(�3.1)

272

52.7

(�4.6)

80.6**

(�3.2)

21.9**

(�5.1)

No

190

22.2

(�3.0)

240

47.3

(�4.7)

37.7

(�7.4)

6.1

(�3.1)

Flu vaccination that a pregnant woman receives is somewhat/very/completely safe for her baby

Yes

618

75.1

(�3.2)

241

47.0

(�4.6)

81.7**

(�3.2)

23.3**

(�5.6)

No

217

24.9

(�3.1)

270

53.0

(�4.7)

38.9

(�7.0)

6.7

(�3.0)

Somewhat/very worried about getting sick from this season's flu vaccination

Yes

397

47.9

(�3.7)

194

37.2

(�4.4)

74.2

(�4.6)

13.4

(�5.0)

No

438

52.1

(�3.7)

317

62.8

(�4.5)

68.1

(�4.6)

15.1

(�4.0)

If a pregnant women gets the flu, it is somewhat/very likely to harm the baby

Yes

445

60.1

(�3.8)

258

61.7

(�5.0)

70.8

(�4.4)

17.1

(�4.8)

No

299

39.9

(�3.8)

171

38.3

(�4.9)

72.0

(�5.5)

15.0

(�5.6)


Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.

All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.

**Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.

Source: http://www2c.cdc.gov/podcasts/download.asp?af=h&f=8620774

health insurance for pregnant women womens health pregnancy health insurance pregnant women women & health

Including HPV Test In Cervical Screenings Saves 3,500 Women From Pointless Tests

Editor's Choice
Academic Journal
Main Category: Cervical Cancer / HPV Vaccine
Also Included In: Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 30 Sep 2011 - 4:00 PDT email icon email to a friendprinter icon printer friendlywrite icon opinions

Current Article Ratings:


Patient / Public: not yet rated
Healthcare Prof: not yet rated

According to a new study published in the British Journal of Cancer, including testing for the human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical screenings reduces over a third of further pointless tests for women.

The results are from the primary assessment, led by The Institute of Cancer Research, of the 'Sentinel sites' project, which aims to make HPV testing part of routine cervical screening.

More than 10,000 women, aged between 25 and 64 years who participated in NHS Cervical Screening Program and whose initial smear test had revealed mild or borderline abnormalities in the cervix, were examined in the investigation.

The researchers then tested the smear tests for HPV, they discovered that approximately 35% (3,581) tested negative for HPV and could resume to routine screening. Those who tested positive for HPV underwent a colposcopy (internal examination) and had no more smear tests.

HPV causes the majority of cervical cancers. However, this does not mean that most females with HPV develop the disease - they don't.

Author Dr Sue Moss, explained:

"Our study shows that adding HPV testing significantly reduces the number of women sent for more invasive tests, when in fact they do not have any serious cervical changes."

The initial phase of testing for HPV in women whose cytology tests were borderline or mildly abnormal started in 2007 in 6 laboratories across England, and were analyzed in this study.

The authors said their study provides valuable insight into the effectiveness of the NHS Cervical Screening program, by including HPV tests in the process at a national level. As of April the year HPV testing has been included as part of the current NHS Cervical Screening Program.

Due to variations in how mild or borderline changes and HPV test results are interpreted, the total number of women who will subsequently have to undergo a colposcopy will vary from lab-to-lab, the study highlighted.

Health information director at Cancer Research UK, Sara Hiom, stated:

"This is a welcome refinement to the highly effective cervical screening programme. This change has already saved thousands of women an anxious wait for extra tests and results, and should help lead to a more efficient screening programme."

Professor Julietta Patnick CBE, director of the NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, said:

"The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes is very pleased indeed with the results from the Sentinel Site project. The use of HPV testing that this paper reports is currently being incorporated into the screening programme nationwide and will be fully rolled out within the next year.

By incorporating HPV testing into our current screening programme in this way, we will be able to significantly reduce the number of repeat cytology tests required and to target our colposcopy services more effectively. This is an important development in our programme enabling us to screen women more effectively and efficiently, reducing unnecessary procedures and minimising any associated anxiety."

Written by Grace Rattue
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our cervical cancer / hpv vaccine section for the latest news on this subject.
British Journal of Cancer

Source: The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR)

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Grace Rattue. "Including HPV Test In Cervical Screenings Saves 3,500 Women From Pointless Tests." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 30 Sep. 2011. Web.
1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/235296.php>


APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


Rate this article:
(Hover over the stars then click to rate)
Patient / Public:
or Health Professional:

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.


Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/235296.php

women health program women health fitness women health first women medical health

Not All Males Aspire To Have Chiseled Bodies Idealized By Popular Culture

Main Category: Men's health
Article Date: 28 Sep 2011 - 1:00 PDT email icon email to a friendprinter icon printer friendlywrite icon opinions

Current Article Ratings:


Patient / Public: 3 stars

3 (2 votes)

Healthcare Prof: not yet rated

Male bodies are increasingly objectified by mass media. Consider Michael 'The Situation' Sorrentino, a cast member of MTV's Jersey Shore reality show, who garnered fame by flashing his chiseled abs before cameras.

Such objectification should send young men running to gyms or fretting before mirrors, right? Not quite. A new study from Concordia University and the University of Manitoba, published in the journal Men and Masculinities, found most boys simply want an average physique.

"Not all boys aspire to have lean, muscular or idealized male bodies that are commonplace in popular culture," says Moss E. Norman, who led the study as a post-doctoral fellow at Concordia's Simone de Beauvoir Institute.

"In many cases, boys who took part in our study were staunchly critical of idealized male images," he continues. "They found it problematic, feminine or vain to be overly concerned with appearances. Sculpted bodies were seen as unnatural, the product of steroids or zealous weight-lifting."

A total of 32 Toronto-area boys, aged 13 to 15, were recruited from a community centre and private school to participate in this research. While the sample group was small, the study lasted nine months and included four in-depth interviews and 19 focus groups.

Discussions centered on male bodies, health, diet and physical activity. Participants were asked to comment on popular culture images, such as the animated character Homer Simpson, shirtless models featured in Bowflex home gym commercials and cut athletes from Ultimate Fighting Championships.

"One of the surprises from this study was how comfortable boys were in expressing, analyzing and comparing bodies - their own, their peers' and those ideals depicted by media," says Norman, who is now a professor at the University of Manitoba's Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management.

"Although they felt pressure to be fit, they displayed a distant, disinterested and cool relationship to their bodies," he adds. "Some participants also admitted to desiring particular masculine ideals and working on their bodies to achieve such idealized forms."

Some body concerns

This study builds on previous research that found boys can face the same anxieties, fears and body image disorders experienced by girls and women. Common body concerns among boys who took part in this particular study included height, muscularity, obesity, skin complexion and style.

"Being overweight was seen as undesirable and associated with a sedentary, immoral lifestyle," says Norman. "

The majority of participants viewed sports as a fun and masculine way to build muscle, while managing calories and body fat. "They felt sports could naturally produce a healthier, fitter and more attractive man," says Norman. "Sports are used to deflect, obscure and erase their bodily anxieties and desires."

Most teenaged boys, Norman concludes, simply want an average physique that doesn't stand out: "Any bodies that fell outside that norm were labeled unnatural, unhealthy or just too much. Boys want a body that's neither too fat nor too skinny; too tall nor too short; too muscular nor too weak."

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Concordia University. "Not All Males Aspire To Have Chiseled Bodies Idealized By Popular Culture." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 28 Sep. 2011. Web.
1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/235085.php>


APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


Rate this article:
(Hover over the stars then click to rate)
Patient / Public:
or Health Professional:

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.


Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/235085.php

women and mental health issues health care for women womens-health.co.uk black women health

Pinky promise may save young dad's life

"I'm going all the way with [Autumn] by my side and our pinky fingers held high in the air," Justin Boyles said.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Justin Boyles learned he had type 2 diabetes in March 2011
  • Since making a promise to his daughter, Boyles has lost more than 65 pounds
  • Boyles raised $7,500 for the American Diabetes Association's "Step Out: Walk to Stop Diabetes"

Duncan, Oklahoma (CNN) -- Justin Boyles lay in bed, exhausted and depressed. His 385-pound body sank into the mattress with each breath he took. I have diabetes, he thought in disbelief.

His 6-year-old daughter, Autumn, crawled on top of the king-sized comforter and stared at him with bright blue eyes.

"Daddy, will you get up and play?"

"No, baby, I'm tired."

She sat back to think. Her mom had tried to explain why Justin was so sad, but Autumn didn't really understand diabetes or its dangerous implications.

"Daddy, are you ever going to be healthy enough to ride a bike with me?"

The question broke Justin's heart. Tears started to roll down his face. "Yes, very soon. I promise," he said.

"Do you pinky promise?" she asked, holding out her tiny finger.

Justin looped his last digit around hers and made the decision to change his life.

All kinds of excuses

Shanon and Justin Boyles were high school sweethearts. The first time they hung out at 16, Justin took Shanon to church. He was smart, polite and made her laugh -- three qualities that helped Shanon overlook his size.

"As long as I can remember, I've been overweight," Justin says. "I remember as a child coming home after school and having a stack of cookies and a giant glass of milk every day."

In high school Justin weighed close to 250 pounds; he was considered obese even at 6 feet 1. As an adult he lived on fast food and spent most of his nights as a security guard sitting down. He'd eat dinner at work -- frozen burritos, burgers and fries -- then stop off at Taco Bell on the way home for the advertised fourth meal.

Shanon and Autumn Boyles wear their "Do you pinky promise?" shirts at the "Step Out: Walk to Stop Diabetes."

"I was really kind of in my own little hole, and I didn't want to get out or do anything," he says.

Shanon became worried. Any time their extended family tried to get together for a birthday party or holiday, Justin refused to go.

"He would have all kinds of excuses," she says. "He was really depressed. He was down on himself real bad."

Most concerning was his lack of time with Autumn, who got upset when her father wouldn't play outside.

"She loves him. He's her hero," Shanon says. "I [knew] why he was feeling that way... but there was nothing I could do about it."

Small steps for a big change

Since his diagnosis with type 2 diabetes in March -- and his pinky promise to Autumn -- Justin has lost more than 65 pounds. He walks around his neighborhood whenever he can and makes sure to do the little things like taking the stairs and returning his shopping cart. The family is also eating better with more vegetables, leaner meats and less sugar. For example, at dinner Justin usually eats a spinach leaf salad with tuna or baked chicken with broccoli. Shanon joins in; she's lost 20 pounds in less than six months on the new diet.

The family recently took a trip to the Oklahoma State Fair and walked around all day, something they never would have done last year.

"I no longer lay in bed thinking that my weight is just too much to overcome," Justin says. "I enjoy being out with family and friends and having a good time."

He only weighs in once a month to avoid becoming obsessed with the numbers on the scale. He hopes to get down to 200 pounds, a weight at which his doctor said he would probably be able to go off his medications.

"I just want him to be healthy and happy. I don't care what weight he's at," Shanon says.

The couple raised more than $7,500 for the American Diabetes Association's "Step Out: Walk to Stop Diabetes" in Oklahoma City on September 14. Their team wore matching black T-shirts with a new slogan: "Do you pinky promise?"

On his website Justin has included a section where he asks readers to make their own promises -- to themselves or to their family -- to get healthy.

"[Autumn] taught me that you can do anything you put your mind to," he says. "It doesn't take a big giant step.It takes doing a little something."

Justin still has a long way to go in his weight loss journey. But rest assured that he'll keep going -- you just don't break a pinky promise, especially one made to your little girl.

Got a weight loss story to share? Submit it on iReport.com

Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_health/~3/W6oUVuPz1_I/index.html

women health program women health fitness women health first women medical health