. Total amount of sleep in a 24-hour period was derived from numeric response to the question “On a typical weekday, how many total hours of sleep do you usually get, including naps?” Responses were rounded to the nearest half hour and categorized as < 6 hours, 6 to < 7 hours, and ≥ 7 hours per day . While < 7 hours is considered to be insufficient sleep for most people, < 6 hours has become the generally accepted definition of “short sleep” [].
or were taking insulin or other diabetes medicine; hypertension was assigned based on indication of high blood pressure in the past 12 months or regular use of high blood pressure medicine; heart disease was assigned if they indicated having heart disease in the past 12 months, or ever had heart disease, heart surgery, or a heart attack, or if they were taking heart medicine). The same health conditions checklist was used to identify older adults with frequent problems with balance/walking and frequent problems with memory.All analyses were performed with survey data weighted to the age-sex-racial composition of the KPNC adult membership in 2019 using SAS v9.4 Proc Surveyfreq and Proc Surveymeans [].
Older adults who rated their health as fair or poor were more likely to have sleep problems/risks than those reporting good or very good/excellent health, and those who reported good health were more likely to have most of the examined sleep problems/risks than those who rated their health as very good or excellent.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:
Health Health Latest News, Health Health Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and short-term and long-term intentions among unvaccinated young adults: a mixed-method approach - BMC Public HealthBackground Only 63.8% of Americans who are 18-to-24-years-old have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 as of June 1, 2022. The Grand Forks County, North Dakota is facing a similar challenge. As of June 2022, 47% of individuals in the 19-to-29-year-old age group are vaccinated. Focusing on unvaccinated individuals in their 20s, Study 1 aims to understand the ways in which receiving COVID-19 vaccines is construed using qualitative interviews; and Study 2 compares the predictors of short-term vaccination intention (i.e., next month) with those of long-term vaccination intention (i.e., three to 5 years) using an online survey. Methods For Study 1, we conducted five focus groups and four in-depth interviews via Zoom with a total of 26 unvaccinated individuals in their 20s living in the Grand Forks County. Constant comparison process was used to categorize data into themes and to recognize characteristics of the identified themes. The aim was to develop themes and associated characteristics. For Study 2, we conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of 526 unvaccinated individuals. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in misinformation and short-term and long-term vaccination intentions, accounting for demographics and socioeconomic status. Results In Study 1, two themes were identified: feelings of uncertainty sparked by profits and monetization and navigating the fear of the unknown. In Study 2, an increase in the confidence of COVID-19 vaccines showed significantly higher odds of short-term intention (OR = 2.658, 95%CI 1.770, 3.990) and long-term intention (OR = 1.568, 95% CI 1.105, 2.226). Believing in misinformation had significantly lower odds of short-term intention (OR = 0.712, 95%CI 0.513, 0.990), while more positive attitudes (OR = 1.439, 95% CI 1.024, 2.024), stronger preference in calculating the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines (OR = 2.108, 95% CI 1.
Source: BioMedCentral - 🏆 22. / 71 Read more »
Molecular testing to deliver personalized chemotherapy recommendations: risking over and undertreatment - BMC MedicineBackground In the adjuvant setting of cancer treatment, de-escalation strategies have the goal of omitting or minimizing treatment in patients, without compromising outcomes. Historically, eligibility for adjuvant treatment solely relied on the patient’s clinical and tumor’s pathological characteristics. At the turn of the century, based on new biological understanding, molecular-based strategies were tested and sometimes implemented. Main body However, we illustrate how molecularly based de-escalation strategies may paradoxically lead to overtreatment. This may happen when the novel approach is tested in lieu of standard management and may not yield the same results when being implemented in addition to usual practice. In the DYNAMIC trial, adjuvant chemotherapy decision in stage II colon cancer was compared between a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-based approach and the standard care. We show this may result in more patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and may expose a similar proportion of patients to chemotherapy if the novel strategy is implemented in addition to usual practice. The other potential risk is undertreatment. We provide an illustration of early breast cancer, where the decision of adjuvant chemotherapy based on the gene expression signature MammaPrint may lead to inferior outcomes as compared with the clinico-pathologic strategy. This may also happen when non-inferiority designs have large margins. Among solutions, it should be acknowledged that clinico-pathological features, like T4 in colon cancer, may not be abandoned and replaced by novel strategies in real-life practice. Therefore, novel strategies should be tested in addition to standard of care, and not in lieu of. Second, de-escalation trials should focus on the settings where the standard of care has a widespread agreement. This would avoid the risk of testing non-inferiority against an ineffective therapy, which guarantees successes without providing informative data. Conclusi
Source: BioMedCentral - 🏆 22. / 71 Read more »
GMA stars' health battles revealed: Lara Spencer, Robin Roberts, Ginger Zee & moreGood Morning America's star anchors including Lara Spencer, Robin Roberts, Ginger Zee and Amy Robach have been through some very public health battles over the years. Find out more here…
Source: hellomag - 🏆 24. / 68 Read more »