According to Save the Children, over two million newborns die within one day of being born worldwide every year - eight million children die each before they reach the age of five. Most of these deaths could be prevented if simple provisions were available, such as trained midwives.
The charity, in a report called The State of the World's Mothers 2006 says more than 500,000 women die annually from either giving birth or complications of pregnancy. Many of them give birth at home, alone.
Save the Children estimates that 70% of these deaths could and should be prevented.
The report describes childbirth as a dance with death for many babies and their mothers in the developing world. When I read it I was reminded of those baby turtles that break out of their eggs and race to the sea, hoping to make it before being picked off by swooping seagulls.
The report paints a bleak picture for many pregnant women and newborns in the developed world. It also reveals a gigantic gap between the rich and poorest nations.
Out of 1000 babies born in Japan, 1.8 die in their first day of life. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa the number stands at 200 out of every 1000.
четверг, 26 января 2012 г.
четверг, 19 января 2012 г.
Early Consumption Of Soda Indicator Of Unhealthy Diet
Young girls who drink soda have less healthy diets through adolescence than their peers who do not drink soda, according to a Penn State study.
The ten-year study showed that girls who drank soda at age five had diets that were less likely to meet nutritional standards for the duration of the study, which ended at age 15. Girls who did not drink soda at age five did not meet certain nutritional requirements, but their diets were healthier.
The difference between the two groups in nutrient intake is "not just because of what they are consuming, but because of what they are not consuming," said Laura Fiorito, postdoctoral fellow in Penn State's Center for Child Obesity Research.
Milk intake differed greatly between the two groups - soda drinkers drank far less milk than non-soda drinkers - and milk has all of the nutrients that differed between the groups except fiber. At age five, non-soda drinkers consumed 10 to 11 ounces of milk daily, while soda drinkers had less than seven ounces.
"Adequate nutrient intake is important for optimal health and growth," the researchers reported in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
For example, low calcium intake is associated with increased risk of bone fractures and higher added sugar is associated with dental problems and the development of several chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.
The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, recommends that girls between age 14 and 18 receive at least 65 milligrams of vitamin C daily. In this study, soda drinkers fell short at just 55 milligrams daily, while non-soda drinkers exceeded the recommendation at 70.5 milligrams daily.
Although soda drinkers had less healthy diets, both groups failed to meet recommendations for certain nutrients. The Institute recommends that girls age 14 to 18 receive at least 1,300 milligrams of calcium daily. At age 15, soda drinkers in the study averaged 767 milligrams a day, while non-soda drinkers had slightly higher intakes at 851 milligrams a day, but were still deficient.
The researchers also found that both groups increased their soda consumption by age 15. However, soda drinkers were consuming nearly twice as much soda at age 15 than their counterparts - 6.6 ounces a day versus 3.4 ounces a day.
Although the study has considerable implications on how beverages impact diet, Fiorito believes children may already have developed drinking preferences and patterns by age five.
"We think that the patterns develop when they are younger. Some studies show that children already drinking soda or carbonated beverages at age two," said Fiorito.
The study followed 170 girls for 10 years, documenting meals three times every two years. Girls classified as "soda drinkers" - those who drank roughly four ounces of soda daily at age five - showed much lower intakes of fiber, protein, vitamin C, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and potassium throughout the study than "non-soda drinkers" -- those who had no soda intake at age five. Also, the soda drinkers had much higher intake of added sugars. The study did not distinguish between diet and regular soda because the "soda drinkers" drank both types, but diet soda intake was very low at age five.
Parents of soda drinkers in the study had higher body mass indexes than non-soda drinkers' parents. Fiorito believes this suggests that "parents model consumption patterns for their children," and that the parents' unhealthy eating habits not only contributed to an increased BMI, but influenced children.
There have been other studies on the effects of soda on dieting, but this is the first study to track the consumption of multiple beverages over a ten-year period. Included in the study were coffee/tea, soda, milk, 100 percent fruit juice, and fruit drinks - any fruit-flavored drinks with less than 100 percent fruit juice.
Other beverages have come under scrutiny in recent years for their possible negative health consequences. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a formal statement in 2001 that recommended limits on children's fruit juice intake. The Academy has not issued any formal statement on soda, but this study provides a clear link showing that soda can prevent people from maintaining a healthy diet.
Other researchers on the study were Leann L. Birch, distinguished professor of human development and family studies; Helen Smiciklas-Wright, professor emerita of nutritional sciences; Diane C. Mitchell, diet assessment coordinator, and Michele Marini, project assistant, all at Penn State.
The National Institutes of Health and the National Dairy Council supported this work.
Source:
A'ndrea Elyse Messer
Penn State
The ten-year study showed that girls who drank soda at age five had diets that were less likely to meet nutritional standards for the duration of the study, which ended at age 15. Girls who did not drink soda at age five did not meet certain nutritional requirements, but their diets were healthier.
The difference between the two groups in nutrient intake is "not just because of what they are consuming, but because of what they are not consuming," said Laura Fiorito, postdoctoral fellow in Penn State's Center for Child Obesity Research.
Milk intake differed greatly between the two groups - soda drinkers drank far less milk than non-soda drinkers - and milk has all of the nutrients that differed between the groups except fiber. At age five, non-soda drinkers consumed 10 to 11 ounces of milk daily, while soda drinkers had less than seven ounces.
"Adequate nutrient intake is important for optimal health and growth," the researchers reported in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
For example, low calcium intake is associated with increased risk of bone fractures and higher added sugar is associated with dental problems and the development of several chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.
The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, recommends that girls between age 14 and 18 receive at least 65 milligrams of vitamin C daily. In this study, soda drinkers fell short at just 55 milligrams daily, while non-soda drinkers exceeded the recommendation at 70.5 milligrams daily.
Although soda drinkers had less healthy diets, both groups failed to meet recommendations for certain nutrients. The Institute recommends that girls age 14 to 18 receive at least 1,300 milligrams of calcium daily. At age 15, soda drinkers in the study averaged 767 milligrams a day, while non-soda drinkers had slightly higher intakes at 851 milligrams a day, but were still deficient.
The researchers also found that both groups increased their soda consumption by age 15. However, soda drinkers were consuming nearly twice as much soda at age 15 than their counterparts - 6.6 ounces a day versus 3.4 ounces a day.
Although the study has considerable implications on how beverages impact diet, Fiorito believes children may already have developed drinking preferences and patterns by age five.
"We think that the patterns develop when they are younger. Some studies show that children already drinking soda or carbonated beverages at age two," said Fiorito.
The study followed 170 girls for 10 years, documenting meals three times every two years. Girls classified as "soda drinkers" - those who drank roughly four ounces of soda daily at age five - showed much lower intakes of fiber, protein, vitamin C, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and potassium throughout the study than "non-soda drinkers" -- those who had no soda intake at age five. Also, the soda drinkers had much higher intake of added sugars. The study did not distinguish between diet and regular soda because the "soda drinkers" drank both types, but diet soda intake was very low at age five.
Parents of soda drinkers in the study had higher body mass indexes than non-soda drinkers' parents. Fiorito believes this suggests that "parents model consumption patterns for their children," and that the parents' unhealthy eating habits not only contributed to an increased BMI, but influenced children.
There have been other studies on the effects of soda on dieting, but this is the first study to track the consumption of multiple beverages over a ten-year period. Included in the study were coffee/tea, soda, milk, 100 percent fruit juice, and fruit drinks - any fruit-flavored drinks with less than 100 percent fruit juice.
Other beverages have come under scrutiny in recent years for their possible negative health consequences. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a formal statement in 2001 that recommended limits on children's fruit juice intake. The Academy has not issued any formal statement on soda, but this study provides a clear link showing that soda can prevent people from maintaining a healthy diet.
Other researchers on the study were Leann L. Birch, distinguished professor of human development and family studies; Helen Smiciklas-Wright, professor emerita of nutritional sciences; Diane C. Mitchell, diet assessment coordinator, and Michele Marini, project assistant, all at Penn State.
The National Institutes of Health and the National Dairy Council supported this work.
Source:
A'ndrea Elyse Messer
Penn State
четверг, 12 января 2012 г.
Link Between Increased Contraceptive Supply And Fewer Unintended Pregnancies
Rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions decrease significantly when women receive a one-year supply of oral contraceptives, instead of being prescribed one- or three-month supplies, a UCSF study shows.
Researchers observed a 30 percent reduction in the odds of pregnancy and a 46 percent decrease in the odds of an abortion in women given a one-year supply of birth control pills at a clinic versus women who received the standard prescriptions for one - or three-month supplies.
The researchers speculate that a larger supply of oral contraceptive pills may allow more consistent use, since women need to make fewer visits to a clinic or pharmacy for their next supply.
"Women need to have contraceptives on hand so that their use is as automatic as using safety devices in cars, " said Diana Greene Foster, PhD, lead author and associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. "Providing one cycle of oral contraceptives at a time is similar to asking people to visit a clinic or pharmacy to renew their seatbelts each month."
Foster also is director of research for Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, part of the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. Her study's findings appear online here.
The researchers linked 84,401 women who received oral contraceptives in January 2006 through Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, Treatment), a California family planning program, to Medi-Cal data showing pregnancies and births in 2006. Through Family PACT, some family planning clinics are able to dispense a one-year supply of pills on-site.
Oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used method of reversible contraception in the United States, the team states. While highly effective when used correctly (three pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), approximately half of women regularly miss one or more pills per cycle, a practice associated with a much higher pregnancy rate (80 pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), according to the team.
The findings of this study have implications for women using oral contraceptives across the country. Most oral contraceptive users in the United States get fewer than four packs at a time; nearly half need to return every month for resupply, according to a 2010 study published in Contraception.
Making oral contraceptive pills more accessible may reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion, while saving taxpayers' dollars, the researchers state. If the 65,000 women in the analysis who received either one or three packs of pills at a time had experienced the same pregnancy and abortion rates as women who received a one-year supply, almost 1,300 publicly funded pregnancies and 300 abortions would have been averted, according to the team.
"The evidence indicates that health plans and public health programs may avoid paying for costly unintended pregnancies by increasing dispensing limits on oral contraceptives," said Foster. "Improving access to contraceptive methods reduces the need for abortion and helps women to plan their pregnancies."
Co-authors are Denis Hulett, Mary Bradsberry, Phillip Darney, MD, MSc, and Michael Policar, MD, MPH, all with the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and San Francisco General Hospital.
Source:
Karin Rush-Monroe
University of California - San Francisco
Researchers observed a 30 percent reduction in the odds of pregnancy and a 46 percent decrease in the odds of an abortion in women given a one-year supply of birth control pills at a clinic versus women who received the standard prescriptions for one - or three-month supplies.
The researchers speculate that a larger supply of oral contraceptive pills may allow more consistent use, since women need to make fewer visits to a clinic or pharmacy for their next supply.
"Women need to have contraceptives on hand so that their use is as automatic as using safety devices in cars, " said Diana Greene Foster, PhD, lead author and associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. "Providing one cycle of oral contraceptives at a time is similar to asking people to visit a clinic or pharmacy to renew their seatbelts each month."
Foster also is director of research for Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, part of the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. Her study's findings appear online here.
The researchers linked 84,401 women who received oral contraceptives in January 2006 through Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, Treatment), a California family planning program, to Medi-Cal data showing pregnancies and births in 2006. Through Family PACT, some family planning clinics are able to dispense a one-year supply of pills on-site.
Oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used method of reversible contraception in the United States, the team states. While highly effective when used correctly (three pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), approximately half of women regularly miss one or more pills per cycle, a practice associated with a much higher pregnancy rate (80 pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), according to the team.
The findings of this study have implications for women using oral contraceptives across the country. Most oral contraceptive users in the United States get fewer than four packs at a time; nearly half need to return every month for resupply, according to a 2010 study published in Contraception.
Making oral contraceptive pills more accessible may reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion, while saving taxpayers' dollars, the researchers state. If the 65,000 women in the analysis who received either one or three packs of pills at a time had experienced the same pregnancy and abortion rates as women who received a one-year supply, almost 1,300 publicly funded pregnancies and 300 abortions would have been averted, according to the team.
"The evidence indicates that health plans and public health programs may avoid paying for costly unintended pregnancies by increasing dispensing limits on oral contraceptives," said Foster. "Improving access to contraceptive methods reduces the need for abortion and helps women to plan their pregnancies."
Co-authors are Denis Hulett, Mary Bradsberry, Phillip Darney, MD, MSc, and Michael Policar, MD, MPH, all with the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and San Francisco General Hospital.
Source:
Karin Rush-Monroe
University of California - San Francisco
четверг, 5 января 2012 г.
NIH Panel Releases Conclusions About Compound BPA's Effect On Reproductive Disorders
A 12-member panel from NIH's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction on Wednesday said it has "minimal" or "negligible" concerns that the compound bisphenol A, which is found in plastic and is similar to estrogen, can cause human reproductive disorders, the Los Angeles Times reports. The panel also said that the compound, also known as BPA, could pose some risk to the neurological development of infants and children (Cone, Los Angeles Times, 8/9).
The journal Reproductive Toxicology last week published on its Web site a statement warning that BPA likely is causing various human reproductive disorders. The statement was accompanied by a new study from NIH that found uterine damage in animals exposed to BPA. The damage is a potential predictor of reproductive diseases among women, including fibroids, endometriosis, cystic ovaries and cancers. Several dozen scientists reviewed about 700 earlier studies and for the first time linked BPA to female reproductive disorders. They also concluded that people are exposed to higher BPA levels than those found to harm laboratory animals. Infants and fetuses are most likely to experience harm from BPA.
In the statement, 38 scientists said that BPA causes cells to turn genes on or off, which could predispose a fetus or child to a reproductive disorder. In addition, BPA levels found in lab animals are similar to those found in human fetal blood, the statement said.
According to Retha Newbold of NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the study found that BPA can cause reproductive damage similar to the anti-miscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol, which was given to pregnant women from the 1940s to the 1970s. Diethylstilbestrol was later found to cause infertility and reproductive cancers among children born to women who took the drug. No studies have been conducted on BPA's effects among humans, and the scientists who signed the statement are calling for human research (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/6).
The panel reviewed 500 animal studies and used five rankings -- negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern and severe concern -- for its findings, the Times reports. For fetuses, pregnant women, infants and children, the panel said there is "some concern that exposure to BPA causes neural and behavioral effects." For fetuses and children, the panel said there is "minimal concern" that BPA harms the prostate gland and causes premature puberty. The panel also said that there is "negligible concern" that BPA cases birth defects. For adults, they reported "negligible concern about adverse reproductive effects." According to the Times, part of the reason the panel ranked the reproductive risks less seriously than the other group of scientists is that the panel rejected several studies in which animals were exposed to BPA through injection rather than through their diets. The panel's recommendation will be reviewed by the National Toxicology Program for a federal report that could lead to regulations restricting use of the chemical, the Times reports.
The journal Reproductive Toxicology last week published on its Web site a statement warning that BPA likely is causing various human reproductive disorders. The statement was accompanied by a new study from NIH that found uterine damage in animals exposed to BPA. The damage is a potential predictor of reproductive diseases among women, including fibroids, endometriosis, cystic ovaries and cancers. Several dozen scientists reviewed about 700 earlier studies and for the first time linked BPA to female reproductive disorders. They also concluded that people are exposed to higher BPA levels than those found to harm laboratory animals. Infants and fetuses are most likely to experience harm from BPA.
In the statement, 38 scientists said that BPA causes cells to turn genes on or off, which could predispose a fetus or child to a reproductive disorder. In addition, BPA levels found in lab animals are similar to those found in human fetal blood, the statement said.
According to Retha Newbold of NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the study found that BPA can cause reproductive damage similar to the anti-miscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol, which was given to pregnant women from the 1940s to the 1970s. Diethylstilbestrol was later found to cause infertility and reproductive cancers among children born to women who took the drug. No studies have been conducted on BPA's effects among humans, and the scientists who signed the statement are calling for human research (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/6).
The panel reviewed 500 animal studies and used five rankings -- negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern and severe concern -- for its findings, the Times reports. For fetuses, pregnant women, infants and children, the panel said there is "some concern that exposure to BPA causes neural and behavioral effects." For fetuses and children, the panel said there is "minimal concern" that BPA harms the prostate gland and causes premature puberty. The panel also said that there is "negligible concern" that BPA cases birth defects. For adults, they reported "negligible concern about adverse reproductive effects." According to the Times, part of the reason the panel ranked the reproductive risks less seriously than the other group of scientists is that the panel rejected several studies in which animals were exposed to BPA through injection rather than through their diets. The panel's recommendation will be reviewed by the National Toxicology Program for a federal report that could lead to regulations restricting use of the chemical, the Times reports.
Comments, Reaction
John Bucher, associate director of NTP, said the panel gave the most weight to neurological effects in children, infants and fetuses because studies consistently have found those effects when newborn animals are exposed to low doses similar to what humans encounter. He added that because the science remains uncertain, it is up to individuals to decide whether to avoid products with BPA.
Steve Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's polycarbonate division said the panel's report is a "strong reassurance to consumers" that products containing BPA are safe. Frederick vom Saal, a University of Missouri-Columbia reproductive toxicologist who has conducted studies on BPA, said that it is disappointing that the panel did not rank the risk higher but that the "panel is now on record saying there are human health concerns."
Some environmental advocates "lambasted" the panel's report, saying it minimized the risks and ignored important research, according to the Times. Anila Jacob of the Environmental Working Group said, "Only the chemical industry agrees with the decision that BPA has little or no human health risks." She added, "That by itself should speak volumes about the corrupted process endorsed by the panel today" (Los Angeles Times, 8/9).
The panel's report is available online. Note: You will need Adobe Acrobat to view the report.
CNN on Thursday included a discussion with CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen about the panel's findings (Phillips, CNN, 8/9). A transcript of the segment is available online. In addition, NPR's "All Things Considered" on Thursday included a discussion with panel member Jane Adams, a neurodevelopmental toxicologist, about the findings (Seabrook, "All Things Considered," NPR, 8/9). Audio of the segment is available online.
Reprinted with kind permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Подписаться на:
Комментарии (Atom)