Problematic online gaming. Is it real and does it matter to our teenagers?

Background: Video games and social media have become an ubiquitous part of our society. Video games have been associated with both positive and negative health consequences. There is a growing body of literature supporting the idea that users can develop problematic interactive media use. We hypothesized that teenagers who screened positive for internet gaming disorder would have correlations with other psychosocial and behavioral concerns when compared to their peers. Methods: An urban cohort of high school students aged 14-18 years completed validated self-reported questionnaires to screen for internet gaming disorder, risk of depression, daytime sleepiness, and quality of life measures. Results: Internet gaming disorder was present in 11.9% of participants. Teens screening positive for problematic online gaming also had significantly elevated risk of depression and a lower quality of life. Conclusion: High school aged students were screened for video game addiction through a self-reported questionnaire. Participants were separated into two groups, those who were identified as meeting criteria for video game addiction and those who did not. The group who screened positive for video game addiction also were at a higher risk for depression and scored lower on a quality-of-life survey. Video game addiction, although likely not causative, may be an indicator of other psychosocial issues faced by high school aged teenagers

COVID-19 Infection versus Influenza (Flu) and Other Respiratory Illnesses

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes the COVID-19 infection. You can be ill with more than one virus at the same time. As the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic continues, influenza and other respiratory infections will also emerge in the community. Respiratory infections may present with similar symptoms and all can spread from person to person. It is hard to tell which virus or bacteria is causing a person’s illness based on symptoms alone. At times testing is needed to see which virus(es) or bacteria are present. These tests usually involve getting a nose and/or throat swab sample, as most of these viruses are present in large amounts in the back of the nose and throat. There is still a lot to learn about the COVID-19 infection and research is ongoing

Shared decision-making for people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the airways and is common in both adults and children. It is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. People with asthma may be helped to manage their condition through shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves at least two participants (the medical practitioner and the patient) and mutual sharing of information, including the patient's values and preferences, to build consensus about favoured treatment that culminates in an agreed action. Effective self-management is particularly important for people with asthma, and SDM may improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by educating patients and empowering them to be actively involved in their own health. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefits and potential harms of shared decision-making for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified in several sources including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of individual or cluster parallel randomised controlled design conducted to compare an SDM intervention for adults and children with asthma versus a control intervention. We included studies available as full-text reports, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data, and we placed no restrictions on place, date, or language of publication. We included interventions targeting healthcare professionals or patients, their families or care-givers, or both. We included studies that compared the intervention versus usual care or a minimal control intervention, and those that compared an SDM intervention against another active intervention. We excluded studies of interventions that involved multiple components other than the SDM intervention unless the control group also received these interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life, patient/parent satisfaction, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations of asthma, asthma control, acceptability/feasibility from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and all adverse events. We graded and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We were unable to pool any of the extracted outcome data owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity but presented findings in forest plots when possible. We narratively described skewed data. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies that compared SDM versus control and included a total of 1342 participants. Three studies recruited children with asthma and their care-givers, and one recruited adults with asthma. Three studies took place in the United States, and one in the Netherlands. Trial duration was between 6 and 24 months. One trial delivered the SDM intervention to the medical practitioner, and three trials delivered the SDM intervention directly to the participant. Two paediatric studies involved use of an online portal, followed by face-to-face consultations. One study delivered an SDM intervention or a clinical decision-making intervention through a mixture of face-to-face consultations and telephone calls. The final study randomised paediatric general practice physicians to receive a seminar programme promoting application of SDM principles. All trials were open-label, although one study, which delivered the intervention to physicians, stated that participants were unaware of their physicians' involvement in the trial. We had concerns about selection and attrition bias and selective reporting, and we noted that one study substantially under-recruited participants. The four included studies used different approaches to measure fidelity/intervention adherence and to report study findings.One study involving adults with poorly controlled asthma reported improved quality of life (QOL) for the SDM group compared with the control group, using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) for assessment (mean difference (MD) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.91), but two other trials did not identify a benefit. Patient/parent satisfaction with the performance of paediatricians was greater in the SDM group in one trial involving children. Medication adherence was better in the SDM group in two studies - one involving adults and one involving children (all medication adherence: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; mean number of controlled medication prescriptions over 26 weeks: 1.1 in the SDM group (n = 26) and 0.7 in the control group (n = 27)). In one study, asthma-related visit rates were lower in the SDM group than in the usual care group (1.0/y vs 1.4/y; P = 0.016), but two other studies did not report a difference in exacerbations nor in prescriptions for short courses of oral steroids. Finally, one study described better odds of reporting no asthma problems in the SDM group than in the usual care group (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.87), although two other studies reporting asthma control did not identify a benefit with SDM. We found no information about acceptability of the intervention to the healthcare professional and no information on adverse events. Overall, our confidence in study results ranged from very low to moderate, and we downgraded outcomes owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences between the four included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that we cannot provide meaningful overall conclusions. Individual studies demonstrated some benefits of SDM over control, in terms of quality of life; patient and parent satisfaction; adherence to prescribed medication; reduction in asthma-related healthcare visits; and improved asthma control. Our confidence in the findings of these individual studies ranges from moderate to very low, and it is important to note that studies did not measure or report adverse events.Future trials should be adequately powered and of sufficient duration to detect differences in patient-important outcomes such as exacerbations and hospitalisations. Use of core asthma outcomes and validated scales when possible would facilitate future meta-analysis. Studies conducted in lower-income settings and including an economic evaluation would be of interest. Investigators should systematically record adverse events, even if none are anticipated. Studies identified to date have not included adolescents; future trials should consider their inclusion. Measuring and reporting of intervention fidelity is also recommended

Official American thoracic society clinical practice guidelines: Diagnostic evaluation of infants with recurrent or persistent wheezing

Background: Infantile wheezing is a common problem, but there are no guidelines for the evaluation of infants with recurrent or persistent wheezing that is not relieved or prevented by standard therapies. Methods: An American Thoracic Society-sanctioned guideline development committee selected clinical questions related to uncertainties or controversies in the diagnostic evaluation of wheezing infants. Members of the committee conducted pragmatic evidence syntheses, which followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The evidence syntheses were used to inform the formulation and grading of recommendations. Results: The pragmatic evidence syntheses identified few studies that addressed the clinical questions. The studies that were identified constituted very low-quality evidence, consisting almost exclusively of case series with risk of selection bias, indirect patient populations, and imprecise estimates. The committee made conditional recommendations to perform bronchoscopic airway survey, bronchoalveolarlavage,esophagealpHmonitoring,andaswallowing study.Italsomadeconditionalrecommendationsagainstempiricfood avoidance, upper gastrointestinal radiography, and gastrointestinal scintigraphy. Finally, the committee recommended additional research about the roles ofinfantpulmonaryfunction testingand food avoidance or dietary changes, based on allergy testing. Conclusions: Although infantile wheezing is common, there is a paucity of evidence to guide clinicians in selecting diagnostic tests for recurrent or persistent wheezing. Our committee made several conditional recommendations to guide clinicians; however, additional research that measures clinical outcomes is needed to improve our confidence in the effects of various diagnostic interventions and to allow advice to be provided with greater confidence

Partner randomized controlled trial: study protocol and coaching intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many children with asthma live with frequent symptoms and activity limitations, and visits for urgent care are common. Many pediatricians do not regularly meet with families to monitor asthma control, identify concerns or problems with management, or provide self-management education. Effective interventions to improve asthma care such as small group training and care redesign have been difficult to disseminate into office practice.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>This paper describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a 12-month telephone-coaching program designed to support primary care management of children with persistent asthma and subsequently to improve asthma control and disease-related quality of life and reduce urgent care events for asthma care. Randomization occurred at the practice level with eligible families within a practice having access to the coaching program or to usual care. The coaching intervention was based on the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Targeted behaviors included 1) effective use of controller medications, 2) effective use of rescue medications and 3) monitoring to ensure optimal control. Trained lay coaches provided parents with education and support for asthma care, tailoring the information provided and frequency of contact to the parent's readiness to change their child's day-to-day asthma management. Coaching calls varied in frequency from weekly to monthly. For each participating family, follow-up measurements were obtained at 12- and 24-months after enrollment in the study during a telephone interview.</p> <p>The primary outcomes were the mean change in 1) the child's asthma control score, 2) the parent's quality of life score, and 3) the number of urgent care events assessed at 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes reflected adherence to guideline recommendations by the primary care pediatricians and included the proportion of children prescribed controller medications, having maintenance care visits at least twice a year, and an asthma action plan. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention was also measured.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Twenty-two practices (66 physicians) were randomized (11 per treatment group), and 950 families with a child 3-12 years old with persistent asthma were enrolled. A description of the coaching intervention is presented.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00860834">NCT00860834</a>.</p

Self-care support for children and adolescents with long-term conditions : the REfOCUS evidence synthesis

Background: Self-care support (e.g. education, training, peer/professional support) is intended to enhance the self-care capacities of children and young people, while simultaneously reducing the financial burden facing health-care systems. Objectives: To determine which models of self-care support for long-term conditions (LTCs) are associated with significant reductions in health utilisation and costs without compromising outcomes for children and young people. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Population: Children and young people aged 0–18 years with a long-term physical or mental health condition (e.g. asthma, depression). Intervention: Self-care support in health, social care, educational or community settings. Comparator: Usual care. Outcomes: Generic/health-related quality of life (QoL)/subjective health symptoms and health service utilisation/costs. Design: Randomised/non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series designs. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ISI Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, The Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment database, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation, IDEAS, reference scanning, targeted author searches and forward citation searching. All databases were searched from inception to March 2015. Methods: We conducted meta-analyses, simultaneously plotting QoL and health utilisation effects. We conducted subgroup analyses for evidence quality, age, LTC and intervention (setting, target, delivery format, intensity). Results: Ninety-seven studies reporting 114 interventions were included. Thirty-seven studies reported adequate allocation concealment. Fourteen were UK studies. The vast majority of included studies recruited children and young people with asthma (n = 66, 68%). Four per cent of studies evaluated ‘pure’ self-care support (delivered through health technology without additional contact), 23% evaluated facilitated self-care support (≤ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact), 65% were intensively facilitated (≥ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact) and 8% were case management (≥ 2 hours’ support with multidisciplinary input). Self-care support was associated with statistically significant, minimal benefits for QoL [effect size (ES) –0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.23 to –0.11], but lacked clear benefit for hospital admissions (ES –0.05, 95% CI –0.12 to 0.03). This finding endured across intervention intensities and LTCs. Statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use were observed (ES –0.11, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04). The total cost analysis was limited by the small number of data. Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use for children aged ≤ 13 years (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04), children and young people with asthma (ES –0.12, 95% CI –0.18 to –0.06) and children and young people receiving ≥ 2 hours per four sessions of support (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.03). Preliminary evidence suggested that interventions that include the child or young person, and deliver some content individually, may optimise QoL effects. Face-to-face delivery may help to maximise emergency department effects. Caution is required in interpreting these findings. Limitations: Identification of optimal models of self-care support is challenged by the size and nature of evidence available. The emphasis on meta-analysis meant that a minority of studies with incomplete but potentially relevant data were excluded. Conclusions: Self-care support is associated with positive but minimal effects on children and young people’s QoL, and minimal, but potentially important, reductions in emergency use. On current evidence, we cannot reliably conclude that self-care support significantly reduces health-care costs. Future work: Research is needed to explore the short- and longer-term effects of self-care support across a wider range of LTCs. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014015452. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme