Children born after the unplanned pregnancy is slower to develop

Children born after the unplanned pregnancies tend to have a more limited vocabulary and poorer non-verbal and spatial abilities. However, this almost entirely explained by disadvantaged conditions, according to a new study published today in the British Medical Journal. In the same study reported no adverse effects of infertility treatment for children.
In the United Kingdom, 30-40% of pregnancies ending in childbirth is unplanned, while the number of children born after assisted reproductive technologies is growing every year.
It is already known that children born after prolonged time capture or assisted reproduction are at greater risk of poor health outcomes such as premature birth, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, and some researchers have reported lower cognitive (mental) scores in these children.
Unplanned pregnancies are also poorer results, but there was little investigation to assess whether a child development associated with pregnancy planning.
A team of researchers in the United Kingdom set out to explore how pregnancy planning, time perception and treatment of infertility, the influence of child cognitive development in three to five years.
They analyzed data from approximately 12,000 children from Millennium study, a major study of Uk families and infants born in 2000-2. Were interviews with parents who took part when their child was aged between nine months and then be reconsidered when the child was three to five years.
Mothers reported whether the pregnancy was planned, their emotions at first pregnant, to arrest and details of any processing of sterility.
Each child is verbal, non verbal and spatial abilities were tested at the age of three and five British ability scales.
Initial analysis showed that children born after an unplanned pregnancy was four to five months behind the planned children to verbal abilities, whereas children born after assisted reproduction was three to four months.
However, these differences all but disappeared when the researchers took into account the socio-economic conditions of each child.
The authors conclude: "these differences are almost entirely explained by socio-economic factors, providing further evidence for the influence of socioeconomic inequalities in the lives of children in the United Kingdom. To help children achieve their full potential, policy-makers continue to target social inequalities. "

Provided by the British Medical Journal (news: web)

health and safety

Read More

Children born after the unplanned pregnancy is slower to develop

Children born after the unplanned pregnancies tend to have a more limited vocabulary and poorer non-verbal and spatial abilities. However, this almost entirely explained by disadvantaged conditions, according to a new study published today in the British Medical Journal. In the same study reported no adverse effects of infertility treatment for children.
In the United Kingdom, 30-40% of pregnancies ending in childbirth is unplanned, while the number of children born after assisted reproductive technologies is growing every year.
It is already known that children born after prolonged time capture or assisted reproduction are at greater risk of poor health outcomes such as premature birth, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, and some researchers have reported lower cognitive (mental) scores in these children.
Unplanned pregnancies are also poorer results, but there was little investigation to assess whether a child development associated with pregnancy planning.
A team of researchers in the United Kingdom set out to explore how pregnancy planning, time perception and treatment of infertility, the influence of child cognitive development in three to five years.
They analyzed data from approximately 12,000 children from Millennium study, a major study of Uk families and infants born in 2000-2. Were interviews with parents who took part when their child was aged between nine months and then be reconsidered when the child was three to five years.
Mothers reported whether the pregnancy was planned, their emotions at first pregnant, to arrest and details of any processing of sterility.
Each child is verbal, non verbal and spatial abilities were tested at the age of three and five British ability scales.
Initial analysis showed that children born after an unplanned pregnancy was four to five months behind the planned children to verbal abilities, whereas children born after assisted reproduction was three to four months.
However, these differences all but disappeared when the researchers took into account the socio-economic conditions of each child.
The authors conclude: "these differences are almost entirely explained by socio-economic factors, providing further evidence for the influence of socioeconomic inequalities in the lives of children in the United Kingdom. To help children achieve their full potential, policy-makers continue to target social inequalities. "

Provided by the British Medical Journal (news: web)

health and safety

Read More

Mexican papayas sicken 99 in the u.s.

Mexican papayas are tainted with salmonella sickened 99 people in the United States, the Centers for disease control and prevention said Tuesday.
No mention of any deaths, but the outbreak spans 23 States and health authorities warned people not to eat fresh, whole papayas imported from Mexico by Agromed production of Alice, Texas.
"Consumers should not eat recalled papayas, and restaurant and food service operators must not serve them," the CDC said.
The company issued a voluntary recall Friday of all Blondie, Yaya, Mananita and Tastylicious chip papayas, which sold prior to July 23 because they could be contaminated.
The first cases in the outbreak of salmonella agona in January and has continued to be reported through mid-July, the CDC said. Twenty-five of the 99 diseases in Texas, the worst hit MAS.
In Mexico, the Ministry of agriculture said Tuesday that it is too early to know whether the Mexican papayas was the source of the disease.
US and Mexican authorities "engage in research in both countries to determine the source of the outbreak of salmonella" that it is time for any conclusive comment on the cause, said Enrique Sanchez, who heads up Mexican food safety.
"For now, Mexican papayas cannot be named as the source of the disease," Sanchez said.
Salmonella poisoning usually causes diarrhea, fever and stomach within 12 to 72 hours of eating and symptoms may take up to one week.
Most people recover without treatment, but it could be people with weak immune system, the elderly and very young people at risk, if the infection spreads to the bloodstream.

(c) AFP 2011


health and safety

Read More

Mexican papayas sicken 99 in the u.s.

Mexican papayas are tainted with salmonella sickened 99 people in the United States, the Centers for disease control and prevention said Tuesday.
No mention of any deaths, but the outbreak spans 23 States and health authorities warned people not to eat fresh, whole papayas imported from Mexico by Agromed production of Alice, Texas.
"Consumers should not eat recalled papayas, and restaurant and food service operators must not serve them," the CDC said.
The company issued a voluntary recall Friday of all Blondie, Yaya, Mananita and Tastylicious chip papayas, which sold prior to July 23 because they could be contaminated.
The first cases in the outbreak of salmonella agona in January and has continued to be reported through mid-July, the CDC said. Twenty-five of the 99 diseases in Texas, the worst hit MAS.
In Mexico, the Ministry of agriculture said Tuesday that it is too early to know whether the Mexican papayas was the source of the disease.
US and Mexican authorities "engage in research in both countries to determine the source of the outbreak of salmonella" that it is time for any conclusive comment on the cause, said Enrique Sanchez, who heads up Mexican food safety.
"For now, Mexican papayas cannot be named as the source of the disease," Sanchez said.
Salmonella poisoning usually causes diarrhea, fever and stomach within 12 to 72 hours of eating and symptoms may take up to one week.
Most people recover without treatment, but it could be people with weak immune system, the elderly and very young people at risk, if the infection spreads to the bloodstream.

(c) AFP 2011


health and safety

Read More

I think healthy to eat healthy: scientists demonstrate link between attention and self-regulation

خطأ hides selsla elghaa vi alnos alasasi lersala elarid llamlia ' Translate '. tom tegaus (8192) elhasa alnsbia lltol lmhatoa alslsla athnaa قراءة alaksa bayanat XML. weimkn zeyada elhasa alnsbia wezelk btghier hazaa alkhasia kaen almstkhedm alla MaxStringContentLength XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas enad enshaa XML قارئ. alistar 1 ' almoodie 2331.
Enlarge
When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is active, it allows the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) to take into account health benefits as well as taste when it assigns a value to a particular food. [Credit: Caltech/Hare, et. al.](Medical Xpress)--you're trying to decide what to eat for dinner. Should it be the chicken and broccoli? The super-sized fast-food burger? Skip it entirely and just get someRocky Road?
Making that choice, it turns out, is a complex neurological exercise. But, according to researchers from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), it's one that can be influenced by a simple shifting of attention toward the healthy side of life. And that shift may provide strategies to help us all make choices — takes on not just in terms of the foods we eat, but in other areas, like whether or not we actually pick up a.
Their research is described in a paper published in the July 27 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
When you decide what to eat, not only does your brain need to figure out how it feels about a food's taste versus its health benefits versus its size or even its packaging, but it needs to decide the importance of each of those attributes relative to the others. And it needs to do all of this more-or-less instantaneously.
When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is active, it allows the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) to take into account health benefits as well as taste when it assigns a value to a particular food.
[Credit: Caltech/Hare, et. al.]
Antonio Rangel, professor of economics and neuroscience at Caltech, has been studying this value-deriving and decision-making process for years now. Along with Todd Hare — a former postdoc at Caltech who is now an assistant professor of neuroeconomics at the University of Zurich in Switzerland — he published a paper in Science in 2009 describing differences in the brains of people who are better at exercising self-control than others. What they found was that while everyone uses the same area of the brain — the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, or vmPFC — to make value-laden decisions like what to munch on, there's a second brain area — the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or dlPFC — that seems to come to life when a person is using self-control during the decision-making process.
In other words, when the dlPFC is active, it allows the vmPFC to take into account health benefits as well as taste when it assigns a value to a particular food.

The new study goes a step further, showing that there seem to be ways to help kickstart the dlPFC through the use of what Hare calls "external pool cues" that allow us to exhibit more self-control than we might have otherwise.
The researchers came to their conclusions based on data from a brain-imaging experiment conducted with 33 adult volunteers, none of whom were following a specific diet or trying to lose weight for any reason. Each of the volunteers was shown 180 different food items — from chips and candy bars to intros and broccoli — through a set of video goggles while in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine.
The hungry subjects — they were asked to fast for at least three hours prior to the experiment — were given up to three seconds to respond to each picture with a decision about whether or not they'd want to eat the food shown after the experiment was over. They could either give the food a strong "no, no" a "," a "yes" or a "strong yes." Once all of the images had been flipped through, a single food image was chosen at random? if the volunteer had said "yes" or "strong yes" to the idea of eating that food, he or she was served that item.
"Because only one random trial was selected to count ', '" says Rangel, "the optimal strategy for subjects is to treat each decision as if it were the only one."
Simple, right? But here's the catch: before every 10 food choices, an instruction would come on the screen for five seconds telling the subjects either to "consider the healthiness," "consider the tastiness," or "make decisions naturally." This meant that of the 180 decisions, the subjects made 60 in each of the three "instruction conditions."
What this was meant to do, Rangel explains, is shift the subject's attention during the experiment and, potentially, shift the way in which they made decisions.
Afterward — outside the scanner — the subjects were asked to rate the same foods on both a tastiness scale (very untasty, untasty, tasty, very tasty) and a scale healthiness (very unhealthy, very unhealthy, healthy, healthy). That way, the researchers were able to associate the choices the subjects made during the brain scan with their stated perceptions of those foods ' attributes — showing that a subject who chose broccoli during the "consider the healthiness" portion of the test might think of it as untasty nonetheless.
The researchers then classified the foods for each subject based on that subject's ratings: unhealthy-untasty, healthy-untasty, unhealthy-tasty, and healthy-tasty. Unsurprisingly, people chose healthy-tasty foods no matter where their attention had been directed.
Things got interesting when the researchers looked at the other three categories, however. Among their findings:
When thinking about healthiness, subjects were less likely to eat unhealthy foods, whether or not they deemed them to be tasty, and more likely to eat healthy-untasty foods.
Being asked to think about healthiness led subjects to say "no" to foods more often than they did when asked to make decisions naturally.
There were no real differences between the choices made during the "consider the tastiness" and "make decisions naturally the western portion of the Medley".When the researchers turned to the fMRI results, they found that the vmPFC was, as influenza, "more responsive to the healthiness of food in the presence of health pool cues," says Rangel. And they'd, as seen previously, the robustness of that response was due to the latest of the dlPFC — that bastion hotel of self-control — which was much quieter when the study's subjects were thinking about taste or their own personal choice than when they were asked to healthiness throw into the equation.
"This latest of the increased health signals on the vmPFC results in an overall value for the food that is based more on its health properties than is the case when the subject's attention is not" focused on healthiness, "says Hare.
These results are most likely not limited just to choices about food, says Hare. "Our findings are also relevant to the current warnings actually changes to many governments have started to make," he notes. "These changes include adding graphical images of the health risks of smoking. It for improvement with regard to be seen whether these images will be more effective in drawing attention to the unhealthiness of smoking than the text warnings. If the graphical warnings do increase attention to health, then our results suggest that they could decrease the desire to smoke. "
Jonathan Malmaud, a former research assistant at Caltech who is now a graduate student at MIT, was also an author on the Journal of Neuroscience paper, Focusing attention on the health aspects of foods changes value signals in the vmPFC and improves dietary choice. " The scientists ' work was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

Provided by California Institute of Technology (news: web)

health and safety

Read More

I think healthy to eat healthy: scientists demonstrate link between attention and self-regulation

خطأ hides selsla elghaa vi alnos alasasi lersala elarid llamlia ' Translate '. tom tegaus (8192) elhasa alnsbia lltol lmhatoa alslsla athnaa قراءة alaksa bayanat XML. weimkn zeyada elhasa alnsbia wezelk btghier hazaa alkhasia kaen almstkhedm alla MaxStringContentLength XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas enad enshaa XML قارئ. alistar 1 ' almoodie 2331.
Enlarge
When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is active, it allows the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) to take into account health benefits as well as taste when it assigns a value to a particular food. [Credit: Caltech/Hare, et. al.](Medical Xpress)--you're trying to decide what to eat for dinner. Should it be the chicken and broccoli? The super-sized fast-food burger? Skip it entirely and just get someRocky Road?
Making that choice, it turns out, is a complex neurological exercise. But, according to researchers from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), it's one that can be influenced by a simple shifting of attention toward the healthy side of life. And that shift may provide strategies to help us all make choices — takes on not just in terms of the foods we eat, but in other areas, like whether or not we actually pick up a.
Their research is described in a paper published in the July 27 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
When you decide what to eat, not only does your brain need to figure out how it feels about a food's taste versus its health benefits versus its size or even its packaging, but it needs to decide the importance of each of those attributes relative to the others. And it needs to do all of this more-or-less instantaneously.
When the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is active, it allows the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) to take into account health benefits as well as taste when it assigns a value to a particular food.
[Credit: Caltech/Hare, et. al.]
Antonio Rangel, professor of economics and neuroscience at Caltech, has been studying this value-deriving and decision-making process for years now. Along with Todd Hare — a former postdoc at Caltech who is now an assistant professor of neuroeconomics at the University of Zurich in Switzerland — he published a paper in Science in 2009 describing differences in the brains of people who are better at exercising self-control than others. What they found was that while everyone uses the same area of the brain — the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, or vmPFC — to make value-laden decisions like what to munch on, there's a second brain area — the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or dlPFC — that seems to come to life when a person is using self-control during the decision-making process.
In other words, when the dlPFC is active, it allows the vmPFC to take into account health benefits as well as taste when it assigns a value to a particular food.

The new study goes a step further, showing that there seem to be ways to help kickstart the dlPFC through the use of what Hare calls "external pool cues" that allow us to exhibit more self-control than we might have otherwise.
The researchers came to their conclusions based on data from a brain-imaging experiment conducted with 33 adult volunteers, none of whom were following a specific diet or trying to lose weight for any reason. Each of the volunteers was shown 180 different food items — from chips and candy bars to intros and broccoli — through a set of video goggles while in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine.
The hungry subjects — they were asked to fast for at least three hours prior to the experiment — were given up to three seconds to respond to each picture with a decision about whether or not they'd want to eat the food shown after the experiment was over. They could either give the food a strong "no, no" a "," a "yes" or a "strong yes." Once all of the images had been flipped through, a single food image was chosen at random? if the volunteer had said "yes" or "strong yes" to the idea of eating that food, he or she was served that item.
"Because only one random trial was selected to count ', '" says Rangel, "the optimal strategy for subjects is to treat each decision as if it were the only one."
Simple, right? But here's the catch: before every 10 food choices, an instruction would come on the screen for five seconds telling the subjects either to "consider the healthiness," "consider the tastiness," or "make decisions naturally." This meant that of the 180 decisions, the subjects made 60 in each of the three "instruction conditions."
What this was meant to do, Rangel explains, is shift the subject's attention during the experiment and, potentially, shift the way in which they made decisions.
Afterward — outside the scanner — the subjects were asked to rate the same foods on both a tastiness scale (very untasty, untasty, tasty, very tasty) and a scale healthiness (very unhealthy, very unhealthy, healthy, healthy). That way, the researchers were able to associate the choices the subjects made during the brain scan with their stated perceptions of those foods ' attributes — showing that a subject who chose broccoli during the "consider the healthiness" portion of the test might think of it as untasty nonetheless.
The researchers then classified the foods for each subject based on that subject's ratings: unhealthy-untasty, healthy-untasty, unhealthy-tasty, and healthy-tasty. Unsurprisingly, people chose healthy-tasty foods no matter where their attention had been directed.
Things got interesting when the researchers looked at the other three categories, however. Among their findings:
When thinking about healthiness, subjects were less likely to eat unhealthy foods, whether or not they deemed them to be tasty, and more likely to eat healthy-untasty foods.
Being asked to think about healthiness led subjects to say "no" to foods more often than they did when asked to make decisions naturally.
There were no real differences between the choices made during the "consider the tastiness" and "make decisions naturally the western portion of the Medley".When the researchers turned to the fMRI results, they found that the vmPFC was, as influenza, "more responsive to the healthiness of food in the presence of health pool cues," says Rangel. And they'd, as seen previously, the robustness of that response was due to the latest of the dlPFC — that bastion hotel of self-control — which was much quieter when the study's subjects were thinking about taste or their own personal choice than when they were asked to healthiness throw into the equation.
"This latest of the increased health signals on the vmPFC results in an overall value for the food that is based more on its health properties than is the case when the subject's attention is not" focused on healthiness, "says Hare.
These results are most likely not limited just to choices about food, says Hare. "Our findings are also relevant to the current warnings actually changes to many governments have started to make," he notes. "These changes include adding graphical images of the health risks of smoking. It for improvement with regard to be seen whether these images will be more effective in drawing attention to the unhealthiness of smoking than the text warnings. If the graphical warnings do increase attention to health, then our results suggest that they could decrease the desire to smoke. "
Jonathan Malmaud, a former research assistant at Caltech who is now a graduate student at MIT, was also an author on the Journal of Neuroscience paper, Focusing attention on the health aspects of foods changes value signals in the vmPFC and improves dietary choice. " The scientists ' work was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

Provided by California Institute of Technology (news: web)

health and safety

Read More

Offset by private health insurance for children of families: study

Families rely increasingly on public health insurance plans provide coverage for their children, a growing trend researchers associated with job losses, coverage changes to private insurance health plans, and expanded access to public plans, according to new research by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.
The trend is particularly strong in rural and urban areas, which traditionally had lower rates of coverage from suburban areas.
"When people are unemployed, not only losing their private insurance based on employment but, with the loss of income, families may be eligible for public projects recently. In addition, as a rule the poor economy and expanded eligibility for public projects may also play a more direct roles in changing health insurance rates among children, "the researchers reported.
Health insurance for children is provided mainly through Medicaid and children's health insurance program (SCHIP) of. Court taking into account a wide range of significant funding cuts for both programs as part of negotiations over the budget deficit, with suggestions ranging from cutting $ 100 billion over ten years to 1 trillion dollars over the same period.
The main findings of this survey show:
Health insurance coverage among children increased 1.3 percentage points from 2008-2009 in the United States, with the largest growth in central cities and rural areas.
The Northeast still has the highest percentage of coverage, with more than 95 percent of children covered. In the South has the lowest coverage rates, 89 percent.
Forty-four States, plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico had been a significant increase in the number of children covered by health insurance.
Twenty-seven Member States saw a decline in private health insurance coverage for children.
Children in the Central cities of the Midwest experienced the largest shift from private to public insurers in 2009. private insurance coverage decreased 4.3 percentage points, while the public coverage increased by 6,5%, approximately 9% of children at the national level are not covered by any form of insurance. More than half of these children are eligible for coverage through Medicaid or SCHIP.
"Research shows that most of these eligible children coming from Member States with low participation rates and are disproportionately within the query. Because those who have health insurance are healthier overall and, more importantly, because healthy children are more likely to become healthy adults, focusing on the coverage of eligible children should remain at the forefront of the agenda of the nation, "the researchers reported.

More info: the full report of this investigation, "All children covered by health insurance has increased in 2009, is available at http://www.carseyi … h. php? id = 168

Provided by the University of New Hampshire (news: web)

health and safety

Read More