Is the staple diet eaten in Medawachchiya, Sri Lanka, a predisposing factor in the development of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology? - A comparison based on urinary β2-microglobulin measurements

BACKGROUND: Exact mechanism of causation of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) in Sri Lanka is not described to date, despite the identification of possible multiple risk factors. Questions have been raised as to why only some are affected while others remain intact, though they are inhabitants of the same locality. METHODS: Comparative studies were carried out, assessing urinary β(2) microglobulin (β(2)m) and the dietary patterns of CKDu patients and age sex matched non-CKDu subjects. Urinary β2m levels of spot urine samples were analyzed using the Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and dietary patterns were studied using twenty four hour dietary recalls and frequency consumption of foods of animal origin performed on three occasions at six months intervals within a period of one and half years. RESULTS: The mean urinary β(2)m level of CKDu patients from Medawachchiya was significantly (p < 0.05) higher when compared with that of the non-CKDu subjects. The mean urinary β(2)m level of the non-CKDu subjects was within the reference limits for spot urine samples (0 – 0.3 μg/mL). White raw rice was the staple diet of both CKDu patients and non-CKDu subjects and the level of consumption was almost the same. The consumption of fresh water fish products of CKDu patients under high (14, 14%), moderate (36, 36%), low (26, 26%) and less (20, 20%) categories did not show significant variations (p > 0.05) compared to non-CKDu subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Staple food in diet and the consumption pattern of CKDu patients from Medawachchiya were similar to that of non-CKDu subjects from the same area despite their urinary β(2)m concentration being significantly higher

Perceived Discrimination and Health Outcomes Among Asian Indians in the United States

Background: Perceived interpersonal discrimination while seeking healthcare services is associated with poor physical and mental health. Yet, there is a paucity of research among Asian Americans or its subgroups. This study examined the correlates of reported interpersonal discrimination when seeking health care among a large sample of Asian Indians, the 3rd largest Asian American subgroup in the US, and identify predictors of adverse self-rated physical health, a well-accepted measure of overall health status. Methods: Cross-sectional survey. Participants comprised of 1824 Asian Indian adults in six states with higher concentration of Asian Indians. Results: Mean age and years lived in the US was 45.7 ± 12.8 and 16.6 ± 11.1 years respectively. The majority of the respondents was male, immigrants, college graduates, and had access to care. Perceived interpersonal discrimination when seeking health care was reported by a relatively small proportion of the population (7.2 %). However, Asian Indians who reported poor self-rated health were approximately twice as likely to perceived discrimination when seeking care as compared to those in good or excellent health status (OR 1.88; 95 % CI 1.12–3. 14). Poor self-rated health was associated with perceived health care discrimination after controlling for all of the respondent characteristics (OR 1.93; 95 % CI: 1.17–3.19). In addition, Asian Indians who lived for more than 10 years in the U.S. (OR 3.28; 95 % CI: 1.73–6.22) and had chronic illnesses (OR 1.39; 95 % CI: 1.17–1.64) (p \u3c 0.05) were more likely to perceive discrimination when seeking health care. However, older Asian Indians, over the age of 55 years, were less likely to perceive discrimination than those aged 18–34 years Indian American. Conclusion: Results offers initial support for the hypothesis that Asian Indians experience interpersonal discrimination when seeking health care services and that these experiences may be related to poor self-rated health status

Developing a community based psychosocial intervention with older people and third sector workers for anxiety and depression: a qualitative study

Background: One-in-five people in the UK experience anxiety and/or depression in later life. However, anxiety and depression remain poorly detected in older people, particularly in those with chronic physical ill health. In the UK, a stepped care approach, to manage common mental health problems, is advocated which includes service provision from non-statutory organisations (including third/voluntary sector). However, evidence to support such provision, including the most effective interventions, is limited. The qualitative study reported here constitutes the first phase of a feasibility study which aims to assess whether third sector workers can deliver a psychosocial intervention to older people with anxiety and/or depression. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore the views of older people and third sector workers about anxiety and depression among older people in order to refine an intervention to be delivered by third sector workers. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with participants recruited through purposive sampling from third sector groups in North Staffordshire. Interviews were digitally recorded with consent, transcribed and analysed using principles of constant comparison. Results: Nineteen older people and 9 third sector workers were interviewed. Key themes included: multiple forms of loss, mental health as a personal burden to bear, having courage and providing/receiving encouragement, self- worth and the value of group activities, and tensions in existing service provision, including barriers and gaps. Conclusions: The experience of loss was seen as central to feelings of anxiety and depression among community- dwelling older people. This study contributes to the evidence pointing to the scale and severity of mental health needs for some older people which can arise from multiple forms of loss, and which present a significant challenge to health, social care and third sector services. The findings informed development of a psychosocial intervention and training for third sector workers to deliver the intervention

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms ‘pilot’ and ‘feasibility’ in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms ‘feasibility’ or ‘pilot’ as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term ‘feasibility’ in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention