94 research outputs found

    Racemic epinephrine compared to salbutamol in hospitalized young children with bronchiolitis; a randomized controlled clinical trial [ISRCTN46561076]

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis is the most common cause of lower respiratory tract illness in infancy, and hospital admission rates appear to be increasing in Canada and the United States. Inhaled beta agonists offer only modest short-term improvement. Trials of racemic epinephrine have shown conflicting results. We sought to determine if administration of racemic epinephrine during hospital stay for bronchiolitis improved respiratory distress, was safe, and shortened length of stay. METHODS: The study was a randomized, double-blind controlled trial of aerosolized racemic epinephrine compared to salbutamol every one to 4 hours in previously well children aged 6 weeks to ≤ 2 years of age hospitalized with bronchiolitis. The primary outcome was symptom improvement as measured by the Respiratory Distress Assessment Instrument (RDAI); secondary outcomes were length of stay in hospital, adverse events, and report of symptoms by structured parental telephone interview one week after discharge. RESULTS: 62 children with a mean age of 6.4 months were enrolled; 80% of children had Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). Racemic epinephrine resulted in significant improvement in wheezing and the total RDAI score on day 2 and over the entire stay (p < 0.05). The mean LOS in the epinephrine arm was 2.6 days (95% CI 2, 3.2) v. 3.4 days in those in the salbutamol group (95% CI 2.6, 4.2) (p > 0.05). Adverse events were not significantly different in the two arms. At one week post-discharge, over half of parents reported that their child still had a respiratory symptom and 40% had less than normal feeding. CONCLUSION: Racemic epinephrine relieves respiratory distress in hospitalized infants with bronchiolitis and is safe but does not abbreviate hospital stay. Morbidity associated with bronchiolitis as identified by parents persists for at least one week after hospital discharge in most infants

    Subjective Distresses of Nasogastric Tube Feeding

    Full text link
    Health care professionals assume that tube feeding is an unpleasant, distressing experience for patients, which is only partially substantiated by experience. Thirty patients were interviewed via a tube feeding and hospital experience checklist (a 47–item interview schedule). Common experiences were operationally defined as those felt by at least 50%; subjectively distressful experiences were those identified by patients as causing distress. The most common and most distressful experiences of nasogastric tube feeding were: sensory irritations and sensory deprivation. The psychosensory irritation experiences were: thirst, sore nose or throat, dry mouth, runny nose, a tube in the nose, taking food through a tube, breathing through the mouth, breathing with a tube in the nose, taking food in a treatment type container, and taking food with a different texture and smell than usual. The psychosensory deprivation experiences were: an unsatisfied appetite for certain foods, deprivation of tasting, chewing, swallowing food, and drinking liquids, limited mobility, and deprivation of regular food. Except for burping, gastrointestinal symptoms were not common though they were usually distressful. This information has been used to develop teaching programs which are being tested for effectiveness in reducing distress associated with nasogastric tube feeding.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68702/2/10.1177_014860717900300204.pd

    Hepatitis Vaccination of Men Who Have Sex with Men at Gay Pride Events

    Get PDF
    Prevention researchers have advocated primary prevention such as vaccination in alternative venues. However, there have been major questions about both the attendance of, and the ability to, vaccinate high-risk individuals in such settings. The current study seeks to assess the feasibility of vaccinating high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM) at Gay Pride events. The research questions are: Do gay men who are sampled at Gay Pride events engage in more or less risky behavior than gay men sampled at other venues? Do the gay men who receive hepatitis vaccinations at Gay Pride engage in more or less risky behavior than gay men at Gay Pride who do not receive hepatitis vaccination? Of the 3689 MSM that completed the Field Risk Assessment (FRA), 1095/3689 = 29.68% were recruited at either the 2006 or 2007 Long Beach, California Gay Pride events. The remaining, 2594/3689 = 70.32% were recruited at Long Beach gay bars, gay community organizations and institutions, and through street recruitment in various gay enclaves in the Long Beach area. Logistic regression analysis yielded eight factors that were associated with non-attendance of Gay Pride: Age, had sex while high in the last 12 months, had unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the last 12 months, had sex for drugs/money in the last 12 months, been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the last 12 months, used nitrites (poppers) in the last 12 months, and used methamphetamine in the last 12 months. Identifying as White, Asian, or African American compared to Hispanic was also associated with non-attendance. Bivariate analysis indicated that, of the MSM sampled at Gay Pride, 280/1095 = 25.57% received a hepatitis vaccination there. The MSM sampled at Gay Pride who reported engaging in UAI or having used any stimulant (cocaine, crack-cocaine, or methamphetamine) in the last 12 months were more likely to receive hepatitis vaccination on-site. The results provide evidence for the viability of successfully vaccinating high-risk MSM at Gay Pride events. However, it is vital that no-cost vaccinations are also funded in other community settings such as STI clinics, drug treatment programs, prisons, universities, and other community resource centers in order to reach those additional high-risk MSM who do not attend Gay Pride

    Predicting attitudinal and behavioral responses to COVID-19 pandemic using machine learning

    Get PDF
    At the beginning of 2020, COVID-19 became a global problem. Despite all the efforts to emphasize the relevance of preventive measures, not everyone adhered to them. Thus, learning more about the characteristics determining attitudinal and behavioral responses to the pandemic is crucial to improving future interventions. In this study, we applied machine learning on the multinational data collected by the International Collaboration on the Social and Moral Psychology of COVID-19 (N = 51,404) to test the predictive efficacy of constructs from social, moral, cognitive, and personality psychology, as well as socio-demographic factors, in the attitudinal and behavioral responses to the pandemic. The results point to several valuable insights. Internalized moral identity provided the most consistent predictive contribution-individuals perceiving moral traits as central to their self-concept reported higher adherence to preventive measures. Similar results were found for morality as cooperation, symbolized moral identity, self-control, open-mindedness, and collective narcissism, while the inverse relationship was evident for the endorsement of conspiracy theories. However, we also found a non-neglible variability in the explained variance and predictive contributions with respect to macro-level factors such as the pandemic stage or cultural region. Overall, the results underscore the importance of morality-related and contextual factors in understanding adherence to public health recommendations during the pandemic.Published versio
    • …
    corecore