Date:January 30, 2015
Summary:Mobile devices are everywhere and children are using them more frequently at young ages. The impact these mobile devices are having on the development and behavior of children is still relatively unknown. Researchers review the many types of interactive media available today and raise important questions regarding their use as educational tools, as well as their potential detrimental role in stunting the development of important tools for self-regulation.
Excerpts
…Early research suggests that interactive media, such as electronic books and learn-to-read applications can be useful in teaching vocabulary and reading comprehension, but only in children preschool-age or older. The potential educational benefits for children under two is questioned, as research on interactive media in this age group is scant, and it is well-known that infants and toddlers learn best through hands-on and face-to-face experiences.
This commentary notes that while mobile device use by children can provide an educational benefit, the use of these devices to distract children during mundane tasks may be detrimental to the social-emotional development of the child. The researchers ask “If these devices become the predominant method to calm and distract young children, will they be able to develop their own internal mechanisms of self-regulation?”
“It has been well-studied that increased television time decreases a child’s development of language and social skills. Mobile media use similarly replaces the amount of time spent engaging in direct human-human interaction,” explained corresponding author Jenny Radesky, MD, clinical instructor in Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine and a former fellow in pediatrics at Boston Medical Center.
The authors question whether heavy device use during young childhood could interfere with development of empathy, social and problem solving skills that are typically obtained by exploring, unstructured play and interacting with peers
…
Related article from the BMC Innovations Newsletter, September 2014 (Excerpt)
Hold the Phone
…there may be some serious drawbacks to never unplugging.
Dr. Radesky, a clinical instructor in pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine and a fellow in the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at BMC, set out to better understand how all the new devices at our fingertips affect both parents’ and children’s behavior. What she found may make us look at our digital attachment in a new light, especially as we consider the potential impact on our relationship with our kids and their development.
…babies with trouble self-regulating also tended to have higher levels of exposure to media devices.
…. infants and toddlers whom parents characterized as most fussy also had the most media exposure, even after accounting for other factors such as socio-demographics and home environment. The study noted early childhood is a crucial time for forming lifelong media habits and suggested the benefit of managing children’s media exposure for both amount and content.
Dr. Radesky… recommends, if possible, having another adult come over to help soothe the baby for a bit instead of turning to a media device “babysitter” so the parent can have a moment to his or herself.
And instead of all-out bans, Dr. Radesky suggests establishing a “no-device rule” at certain times of the day or in particular places in the home.
…Although there are no current guidelines, Dr. Radesky has funding from the American Academy of Pediatrics to develop guidelines for how pediatricians can talk to families about mobile media use.
– See more at: http://www.bmc.org/about/news/BMC-innovations4.htm#sthash.D1DM1WZ3.dpuf
Like this:
Like Loading...
January 31, 2015
Posted by Janice Flahiff |
Health News Items | Application software, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, child development, Interactive media, Jenny Radesky |
Leave a comment
About 20 years ago I started thinking along similar lines. Now I am at a point questioning if it is ethical to profit from health care. Two years as a Peace Corps volunteer (back in 1980/81 in Liberia, West Africa) changed my views on many topics considerably. Also I think it was the wonderful humanistic/social justice tone of grade school religious textbooks, notably 8th grade back in 1969.
Ethicists question the impact of health information that is available online, specifically hospital advertisements, and argue that while the Internet offers patients valuable data and tools — including hospital quality ratings and professional treatment guidelines – that may help them when facing decisions about where to seek care or whether to undergo a medical procedure, reliable and unbiased information may be hard to identify among the growing number of medical care advertisements online.
From the 30 January 2015 Carnegie Mellon press release
In a commentary piece published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Carnegie Mellon University’s Alex John London and the University of Pittsburgh’s Yael Schenkerquestion the impact of health information that is available online, specifically hospital advertisements. London and Schenker argue that while the Internet offers patients valuable data and tools — including hospital quality ratings and professional treatment guidelines — that may help them when facing decisions about where to seek care or whether to undergo a medical procedure, reliable and unbiased information may be hard to identify among the growing number of medical care advertisements online.
“The marketing objective of selling services by making them seem attractive to consumers can create tensions or outright conflict with the ethical imperative of respect for persons, since the latter requires that patients make medical decisions in light of balanced information about the full range of risks and benefits associated with their care,” said London, professor of philosophy in CMU’s Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences and director of the Center for Ethics and Policy.
Referencing a research article in the same journal issue that found hospital websites failed to disclose risk information for transaortic valve replacement (TAVR), a recently approved procedure to treat patients whose aortic valve does not open fully, London and Schenker pinpoint four risk concerns for patients seeking medical information online:
1. Identifying Advertising — Hospital websites often have the appearance of an education portal, leaving patients to assume that the information presented is informational, not persuasive.
2. Finding Unbiased Information — Unlike FDA-regulated direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs, hospital advertising is overseen by the Federal Trade Commission and subject to the same “reasonable” standards applied to advertisements for common consumer goods such as cars and cereal. While hospital advertisements may describe specific medical interventions that entail significant
risks, there is no legal requirement that these risks be disclosed.
3. Recognizing Incomplete or Imbalanced Information — Poor-quality medical information is hard to recognize unless the person reading it is a trained clinician.
4. Influence on Health Care Decisions — As patients seek out information online, the quality of their decision-making and care choices will be influenced by the accuracy or inaccuracy of the information they are likely to encounter.
To begin to fix the risk to patients seeking medical information online, London and Schenker recommend to clearly label hospital websites as advertisements; allocate resources to created balanced online informational tools; and focus future attention on not only the content of health care advertising but its impact.
For more information, visit http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/faculty-london.php.
Related Resource
- Evaluating Health Information (Health Resources for All, Edited by JaniceFlahiff)
- The Penn State Medical Center Library has a great guide to evaluate health information on the Internet.
The tips include
- Remember, anyone can publish information on the internet!
- If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
If the Web site is primarily about selling a product, the information may be worth checking from another source.
- Look for who is publishing the information and their education, credentials, and if they are connected with a trusted coporation, university or agency.
- Check to see how current the information is.
- Check for accuracy. Does the Web site refer to specific studies or organizations?
- How to Evaluate Health Information on the Internet (US National Cancer Institute)
Like this:
Like Loading...
January 31, 2015
Posted by Janice Flahiff |
Medical and Health Research News | Carnegie Mellon University, evaluating health information, Federal Trade Commission, Health care, health ethics, Health informatics, health information, health information evaluation, medical care, online health information, University of Pittsburgh |
Leave a comment
Communication is key when dealing with aging parents
From the 27 January 2015 Penn State press release By Marjorie S. Miller
The goal of the research was not to identify whether individuals are “stubborn,” but rather to understand perceptions of older parents and their adult children regarding such behavior.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Headstrong elderly parents and their adult children may be able to find common ground with proper intervention, according to researchers in human development.
Recent findings suggest that both adult children and their aging parents identify stubbornness in the parents, and that a new approach to conversation may be the answer.
Aging parents may respond to advice or help with daily problems from their grown children by insisting, resisting, or persisting in their ways or opinions — being stubborn. Until now, research has not examined how frequently such behaviors occur and what factors are associated with these behaviors.
The researchers demonstrated that individual and relationship-based factors are linked to the perceived expression of stubbornness by parents and that there is discordance in perceptions within families. Findings suggest a need for intervention to increase understanding.
“Finding better ways to have that conversation is really important,” Zarit said.
The researchers found that stubborn behaviors are reported to have occurred in the past few months at least once, but usually more often for more than 90 percent of families interviewed.
Three-fourths of children and two-thirds of aging parents in the sample say that at least one of the behaviors — insisting, resisting or persisting — is happening sometimes. The children in these families are not providing caregiving support — high levels of support with daily activities or basic needs — but rather the family members are providing everyday support to one another.
A second finding, Heid said, is that adult children link perceptions of parent stubbornness with how children see their relationships with their parents, but parents link their perceptions to who they are as people. If parents see themselves as more neurotic or less agreeable, they report more stubbornness.
….
There are often basic differences within families about day-to-day goals that could impact how families provide care or support. It is likely, Heid says, that these differences are a barrier to providing support within families.
“Helping families learn how to talk about older adults’ preferences and about goal differences may be important in helping families best support older adults,” she said. “However, this may mean we need to do additional work and research to develop the best strategies to do so.”
“For families providing support to an older adult, this work confirms that these behaviors happen, but also that there is room for continued communication to ensure that there are shared goals in care and support,” Heid said.
…
Like this:
Like Loading...
January 31, 2015
Posted by Janice Flahiff |
Psychology | adult children, Ageing, aging parents, dealing with aging parents, elderly parents, family support, Old age, perception, Self-perception theory, stubbornness |
Leave a comment
From the 30 January 2015 post by Nicole Hassoun and Priya Bhimani at Impact Ethics
For much of 2014, the Ebola outbreak in Sub-Saharan Africa dominated headlines as the virus spread and eventually made its way to the United States and Europe. Unfortunately, while the world focused on graphic images of people dying from Ebola on the street, little attention was paid to other infectious diseases that continue to plague much of the developing world.
As media coverage of the Ebola outbreak slowly started to decline, however, news of a new strain of drug-resistant malaria started to catch the public’s attention. Drug-resistance is a silent but serious threat to public health. And, if drug-resistant malaria were to spread from its current location in Myanmar to the nearby nations of India and China, it could easily become the world’s next big global health emergency.
More generally, every year millions of people die from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDs – aptly named neglected diseases. This fact invites the following questions: What efforts to combat these neglected diseases are working? Where is help still needed? And, what initiatives are actually making a difference?
A new Global Health Impact index, supported by a collaboration of university-based researchers and civil society organizations around the world, helps provide answers to these questions. The index evaluates the global health impact of particular drugs. This information can be used to increase awareness about particular diseases, and create national and international demand for drugs to treat these diseases.
A drug’s global health impact is determined by compiling information about: (1) the need for the drug; (2) access to the drug; and (3) effectiveness of the drug. In this way, the Global Health Impact index makes it possible to estimate the impact of each drug in each country, as well as the global impact of particular drugs on specific diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.
…
Like this:
Like Loading...
January 31, 2015
Posted by Janice Flahiff |
Health Statistics | drug access, drug effectiveness, drug efficacy, drug global health impact, Drug overdose, Ebola virus disease, global health, health statistics, infectious diseases, Sub-Saharan Africa, World Health Organization |
Leave a comment
From the 30 January 2015 article by Justin Worland at Time
Crash-tested 2010 Mercedes-Benz E 350 photographed at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Vehicle Research Center. IIHS crash test page (Photo credit: Wikipedia)From the 30 January 2015 article by Justin Worland at Time
The chances of dying in a car crash in a new vehicle have declined dramatically in recent years to their lowest point ever, according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Improvements to vehicle safety technology since the mid-1980s saved 7,700 lives in the United States in 2012 alone, the study found.
“There’s all the bad news about recalls, which make it sound like vehicles are getting less safe,” says IIHS president Adrian Lund. “What these results show is that motor vehicles are safer than they ever have been in the past. This is a huge reduction of people dying as occupants of motor vehicles in crashes.”
The study, which looked at data on deaths in 2011 model year vehicles, found that no one died in nine vehicle models. The death rate per million registered vehicle years, a number that represents how many people died per the number of years a car is registered to be on the road, declined to 28 for 2011 model cars. That rate was 87 for cars made a decade earlier, Lund says.
The report attributed much of that improvement to changes in technology….
Read the entire article here
Like this:
Like Loading...
January 31, 2015
Posted by Janice Flahiff |
Consumer Safety | car safety, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, vehicle safety, vehicle safety technology |
Leave a comment
