Children’s School-Day Nutrient Intake in Ontario: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study Comparing Students’ Packed Lunches from Two School Schedules

This study compared the caloric and nutrient values of packed lunch contents and consumption in the Balanced School Day (BSD) (two 20 min eating periods) versus the Traditional Schedule (TS) (one 20 min lunch). Foods consumed during school were assessed by direct food observation in 321 grade 3 and 4 students, aged 7–10 years, at 9 BSD and 10 TS elementary schools in Ontario. Packed lunch contents in the BSD were significantly higher than the TS in energy (3128.14 ± 1100.36 vs. 2658.98 ± 951.34 kJ, p \u3c 0.001, respectively). Similarly, carbohydrates, total sugar, protein, fat, saturated fatty acids (SFA), calcium, iron, and sodium were significantly higher in the BSD versus TS packed lunches. Correspondingly, students in the BSD consumed significantly more energy, carbohydrates, total sugar, and SFA compared to the TS. Overall, lunches brought by students in the BSD schedule provided more energy across all macronutrients, with only a few micronutrients showing increased amounts, suggesting two 20 min eating opportunities could contribute to excess caloric intake during school, potentially contributing to the prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity in Canada. Furthermore, packed lunches in both schedules had excess amounts of nutrients of concern and much work is needed to ensure that children in Canada receive nutritious lunches at school

Students’ food intake from home-packed lunches in the traditional versus balanced school day

Purpose: To assess the type and quantity of foods children brought and consumed at school in the balanced school day (BSD), with two 20-minute eating periods, versus the traditional schedule (TS), with one 20-minute lunch. Methods: Direct observation identified food items and amounts in BSD and TS lunches of grade 3 and 4 students (n = 321). Results: The mean (SD) servings of foods packed in BSD lunches were significantly higher than the TS lunches for milk and alternatives (0.69 (0.70) vs 0.47 (0.49), P = 0.02), sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs; 0.91 (1.24) vs 0.57 (0.99), P = 0.01), and snacks (2.74 (1.55) vs 2.24 (1.48), P \u3c 0.01). Regardless of schedule, only 40.8% of students had vegetables packed in their lunch, whereas 92.8% had snacks. When comparing foods eaten, SSBs and snacks remained significantly higher in the BSD (0.75 (1.02) vs 0.48 (0.83), P = 0.03; 2.37 (1.44) vs 1.93 (1.36), P = 0.01, respectively). The proportion of children (%) whose consumption met one-third of Canada’s Food Guide recommendations for vegetables and fruit was low (27.5% BSD, 31.0% TS). Conclusions: The BSD may have unintended negative consequences on the type and amount of foods packed in school lunches. Support for families should focus on encouraging more vegetables and fruit and fewer SSBs and snacks in packed lunches

Assessment of alcohol problems using AUDIT in a prison setting: more than an 'aye or no' question

<br>Background: Alcohol problems are a major UK and international public health issue. The prevalence of alcohol problems is markedly higher among prisoners than the general population. However, studies suggest alcohol problems among prisoners are under-detected, under-recorded and under-treated. Identifying offenders with alcohol problems is fundamental to providing high quality healthcare. This paper reports use of the AUDIT screening tool to assess alcohol problems among prisoners.</br> <br>Methods: Universal screening was undertaken over ten weeks with all entrants to one male Scottish prison using the AUDIT standardised screening tool and supplementary contextual questions. The questionnaire was administered by trained prison officers during routine admission procedures. Overall 259 anonymised completed questionnaires were analysed.</br> <br>Results: AUDIT scores showed a high prevalence of alcohol problems with 73% of prisoner scores indicating an alcohol use disorder (8+), including 36% having scores indicating ‘possible dependence’ (20-40). AUDIT scores indicating ‘possible dependence’ were most apparent among 18-24 and 40-64 year-olds (40% and 56% respectively). However, individual questions showed important differences, with younger drinkers less likely to demonstrate habitual and addictive behaviours than the older age group. Disparity between high levels of harmful/hazardous/dependent drinking and low levels of ‘treatment’ emerged (only 27% of prisoners with scores indicating ‘possible dependence’ reported being ‘in treatment’). Self-reported associations between drinking alcohol and the index crime were identified among two-fifths of respondents, rising to half of those reporting violent crimes.</br> <br>Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify differing behaviours and needs among prisoners with high AUDIT score ranges, through additional analysis of individual questions. The study has identified high prevalence of alcohol use, varied problem behaviours, and links across drinking, crime and recidivism, supporting the argument for more extensive provision of alcohol-focused interventions in prisons. These should be carefully targeted based on initial screening and assessment, responsive, and include care pathways linking prisoners to community services. Finally, findings confirm the value and feasibility of routine use of the AUDIT screening tool in prison settings, to considerably enhance practice in the detection and understanding of alcohol problems, improving on current more limited questioning (e.g. ‘yes or no’ questions).</br&gt

Parental Reports of Lunch-Packing Behaviours Lack Accuracy: Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Packing School Lunches.

Purpose Parents influence the foods their children consume and often provide proxy reports of this intake. One way parents exert this influence is by providing home-packed lunches. This study compared parental reports of foods packed in children\u27s lunches with what was actually packed and identified parental barriers and facilitators to packing lunches. Methods Grade 3 and 4 student-parent dyads (n = 321) in 19 elementary schools in Ontario participated. Parental reports and actual packed lunch contents were collected via self-administered surveys and direct observation, respectively. Parental barriers and facilitators were obtained through open and closed survey questions. Results Median portions packed were significantly higher for sugar-sweetened beverages and snacks and significantly lower for fruits, fruit juice, vegetables, milk/alternatives, and meat/alternatives than parents reported. Packing a healthy lunch was important/very important/of the utmost importance for 95.9% of respondents, and 97.5% perceived their nutrition knowledge as adequate/good/very good . Barriers to packing a lunch included: child\u27s food preferences, time, finances, allergy policies, and food safety. Nutrition resources, observing other children\u27s lunches, child\u27s input, and planning ahead were identified as facilitators. Conclusions Strategies to improve packed lunches should move beyond parental nutrition knowledge and importance of lunch packing to address parental barriers and facilitators

Anastrozole and letrozole: an investigation and comparison of quality of life and tolerability

Previous studies have demonstrated that both anastrozole and letrozole are well tolerated. Letrozole suppresses estrogen to a greater degree than anastrozole in the serum and breast tumor. Concerns have been raised that greater potency may adversely affect patients’ quality of life (QOL). One hundred eighty-one postmenopausal women with invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers were randomized to receive either 12 weeks of letrozole followed by 12 weeks of anastrozole or the reverse sequence. One hundred and six received immediate adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AIs) following surgery, and 75 received extended adjuvant therapy. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Endocrine Subscale (FACT-B-ES) QOL questionnaires were completed to assess QOL on each drug. Additional side-effect profiles were collected. Each patient completed a patient preference form. Twenty-one patients withdrew before study end, 10/179 (5.6%) while taking letrozole and 4/173 (2.3%) while taking anastrozole (P = 0.12). Tamoxifen-naïve patients had a higher mean ES (endocrine symptoms subscale) score at entry versus those having extended therapy (66.0 vs. 61.9; P = 0.001). There was no significant change in FACT-B-ES (overall) scores or ES scores while patients were taking anastrozole or letrozole and no significant differences between drugs. Nearly 80% of patients reported one or more side effects with either agent. No differences in frequency, grade, or range of side effects were seen between drugs. Of 160 patients, 49 (30.6%) preferred letrozole, 57 (35.6%) preferred anastrozole, and 54 (33.8%) had no preference (P = 0.26, Pearson’s Chi-squared test). In conclusion, both AIs are equally well tolerated. There were no significant differences in QOL scores between the two drugs