An Integrative Review of School-Based Interventions for Addressing Childhood Obesity

An Integrative Review of School-Based Interventions for Addressing Childhood Obesity Introduction: According to Statistics Canada (2016), 1 in 7 children in Canada suffer from obesity. The terms “obesity” and “overweight” are described as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that is harmful to one\u27s health. Children suffering from obesity have reported a higher incidence of psychosocial distress in comparison to children of healthy weight. Methods: Due to these alarming rates in the surge of childhood obesity, an intervention needs to be addressed and implemented. There have been multiple studies and systematic reviews on the topic, although little has been done to implement successful strategies. We conducted an integrative review of both quantitative and qualitative studies to better understand what has previously been known on this topic and what the next steps are to combat childhood obesity. Whittemore and Knafl’s strategies were utilized to create our integrative review to ensure rigour by utilizing their framework (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). Results: Our initial analysis indicates that implementing health promotion strategies such as increased physical activity, healthy eating in the classroom by using a teach the teacher method and actively involving parents in the intervention group will likely result in long term compliance in reduction of BMI. Thus decreasing mental health illnesses correlated with elevated BMI in youth. Conclusions: This review will be used to educate about the prevalence of childhood obesity and the importance of the implementation of health promotion strategies. Key words: childhood obesity, education, nutrition, chronic disease, preventio

The Glasgow Outcome Scale -- 40 years of application and refinement

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was first published in 1975 by Bryan Jennett and Michael Bond. With over 4,000 citations to the original paper, it is the most highly cited outcome measure in studies of brain injury and the second most-cited paper in clinical neurosurgery. The original GOS and the subsequently developed extended GOS (GOSE) are recommended by several national bodies as the outcome measure for major trauma and for head injury. The enduring appeal of the GOS is linked to its simplicity, short administration time, reliability and validity, stability, flexibility of administration (face-to-face, over the telephone and by post), cost-free availability and ease of access. These benefits apply to other derivatives of the scale, including the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS) and the GOS paediatric revision. The GOS was devised to provide an overview of outcome and to focus on social recovery. Since the initial development of the GOS, there has been an increasing focus on the multidimensional nature of outcome after head injury. This Review charts the development of the GOS, its refinement and usage over the past 40 years, and considers its current and future roles in developing an understanding of brain injury

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. METHODS: This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research