79 research outputs found

    Risk-benefit assessment of sunscreen - Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids, Materials in Contact with Food, and Cosmetics of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment

    Get PDF
    VKM has performed a risk-benefit assessment of sunscreen use and six UV filters. This task was undertaken on the initiative of a VKM Panel in response to the apparent paradox between the need for protective measures, such as use of sunscreens, to reduce Norway’s high incidence and mortality of skin cancer and a consumer concern for the safety of sunscreens. Concerns include safety of ingredients and sunscreens’ effect on vitamin D synthesis. Sunscreen products are legally regulated as cosmetic products in the EU, and only approved UV filters up to a maximum determined concentration are allowed in the ready-foruse preparation. VKM used a systematic approach to assess risks and benefits of sunscreen use and risks of six selected UV filters: bis-ethyl-hexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (BEMT), butyl methoxydibenzoyl methane (BMDBM), 2-ethylhexyl salicylate (EHS), ethylhexyl triazone (EHT), octocrylene (OC), and titanium dioxide in nanoform (NP-TiO2). These UV filters are among the most frequently used in sunscreens on the Norwegian market. Sunscreen sprays and lip products were not included. Scientific publications and reports up to 2020 were retrieved to assess adverse and protective effects of sunscreen and adverse effects of UV filters. We assessed risk of bias in the studies and evidence for health outcomes with the aid of validity tools, and estimated exposure to each UV filter using probabilistic methods. The evidence showed that sunscreens were beneficial in protecting against certain skin cancers. Insufficient evidence precluded determination of the hazard associated with sunscreen use. The UV filters occurred in concentrations similar to or below the limits set in the EU cosmetics regulative. VKM considered that little to no hazard was associated with use of the six evaluated UV filters. VKM concludes that the risks related to use of the six evaluated UV filters are negligible since the real-life use of these UV filters is several-fold lower than the amounts that may cause any adverse health effect. The evidence for harmful health effects of sunscreens is insufficient to determine risk. Sunscreen use protects against certain skin cancers and is beneficial for the general Norwegian population.Risk-benefit assessment of sunscreen - Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids, Materials in Contact with Food, and Cosmetics of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and EnvironmentpublishedVersio

    Risk-benefit assessment of sunscreen - Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids, Materials in Contact with Food, and Cosmetics of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment

    Get PDF
    VKM has performed a risk-benefit assessment of sunscreen use and six UV filters. This task was undertaken on the initiative of a VKM Panel in response to the apparent paradox between the need for protective measures, such as use of sunscreens, to reduce Norway’s high incidence and mortality of skin cancer and a consumer concern for the safety of sunscreens. Concerns include safety of ingredients and sunscreens’ effect on vitamin D synthesis. Sunscreen products are legally regulated as cosmetic products in the EU, and only approved UV filters up to a maximum determined concentration are allowed in the ready-foruse preparation. VKM used a systematic approach to assess risks and benefits of sunscreen use and risks of six selected UV filters: bis-ethyl-hexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (BEMT), butyl methoxydibenzoyl methane (BMDBM), 2-ethylhexyl salicylate (EHS), ethylhexyl triazone (EHT), octocrylene (OC), and titanium dioxide in nanoform (NP-TiO2). These UV filters are among the most frequently used in sunscreens on the Norwegian market. Sunscreen sprays and lip products were not included. Scientific publications and reports up to 2020 were retrieved to assess adverse and protective effects of sunscreen and adverse effects of UV filters. We assessed risk of bias in the studies and evidence for health outcomes with the aid of validity tools, and estimated exposure to each UV filter using probabilistic methods. The evidence showed that sunscreens were beneficial in protecting against certain skin cancers. Insufficient evidence precluded determination of the hazard associated with sunscreen use. The UV filters occurred in concentrations similar to or below the limits set in the EU cosmetics regulative. VKM considered that little to no hazard was associated with use of the six evaluated UV filters. VKM concludes that the risks related to use of the six evaluated UV filters are negligible since the real-life use of these UV filters is several-fold lower than the amounts that may cause any adverse health effect. The evidence for harmful health effects of sunscreens is insufficient to determine risk. Sunscreen use protects against certain skin cancers and is beneficial for the general Norwegian population.Risk-benefit assessment of sunscreen - Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids, Materials in Contact with Food, and Cosmetics of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and EnvironmentpublishedVersio

    Life values as predictors of pain, disability and sick leave among Swedish registered nurses: a longitudinal study

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prospective studies on high-risk populations, such as subgroups of health care staff, are limited, especially prospective studies among staff not on sick-leave. This paper is a report of a longitudinal study conducted to describe and compare the importance and consistency of life domains among registered nurses (RNs) working in a Swedish hospital and evaluate a model based on the consistency of valued life domains for prediction of pain, disability and sick leave.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Importance and consistency ratings of life values, in 9 domains, were collected during 2003 and 2006 from 196 RNs using the Valued Living Questionnaire (VLQ). Logistic regression analyses were used for prediction of pain, disability and sick leave at the three-year follow-up. The predictors family relations, marriage couples/intimate relations, parenting, friends/social life, work, education, leisure time, psychological well-being, and physical self-care were used at baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>RNs rated life values regarding parenting as most important and with the highest consistency both at baseline and at follow-up. No significant differences were found between RNs' ratings of importance and consistency over the three-year period, except for friends/social relations that revealed a significant decrease in importance at follow-up. The explanatory models for pain, disability and sick leave significantly predicted pain and disability at follow-up. The odds of having pain were significantly increased by one consistency rating (psychological well-being), while the odds were significantly decreased by physical self-care. In the model predicting disability, consistency in psychological well-being and education significantly increased the odds of being disabled, while consistency in physical self-care significantly decreased the odds.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results suggest that there might be a link between intra-individual factors reflecting different aspects of appraised life values and musculoskeletal pain (MSP).</p

    A trial to evaluate the effect of the sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (DAPA‐HF)

    Get PDF
    Background: Sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of incident heart failure hospitalization in individuals with type 2 diabetes who have, or are at high risk of, cardiovascular disease. Most patients in these trials did not have heart failure at baseline and the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on outcomes in individuals with established heart failure (with or without diabetes) is unknown. Design and methods: The Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse‐outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA‐HF) is an international, multicentre, parallel group, randomized, double‐blind, study in patients with chronic heart failure, evaluating the effect of dapagliflozin 10 mg, compared with placebo, given once daily, in addition to standard care, on the primary composite outcome of a worsening heart failure event (hospitalization or equivalent event, i.e. an urgent heart failure visit) or cardiovascular death. Patients with and without diabetes are eligible and must have a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, a moderately elevated N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide level, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. The trial is event‐driven, with a target of 844 primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include the composite of total heart failure hospitalizations (including repeat episodes), and cardiovascular death and patient‐reported outcomes. A total of 4744 patients have been randomized. Conclusions: DAPA‐HF will determine the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin, added to conventional therapy, in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

    Mobil teknologi kan støtte personer med funksjonshemming i hverdagen

    No full text
    Mobil teknologi som nettbrett, smarttelefoner og MP3-spillere kan bidra til ferdigheter som trengs for deltakelse i samfunnet for denne gruppen. Det viser en systematisk oversikt fra 2017
    corecore