Tag Archives: screening

Parents, Stay Calm: Achievable Tips for Healthy Screening Times for Kids | Kaitlyn Regehr

Posted on by
Reply

this summer, technology secretary Peter Kyle revealed that he is contemplating a two-hour “screen time” limit for children’s use of social media apps. This approach is not just insufficient; it has become outdated.

While the timing of this announcement is appropriate, coinciding with the onset of summer holidays and the imperative for parents to oversee their children’s safety in digital spaces, it is rooted in older screen time recommendations. While it’s vital to think about limiting screen time, the suggested cap only addresses usage duration without considering quality. Thankfully, as someone who teaches digital literacy and is also a parent, I recognize there are ways to cultivate healthier habits for our children this summer, even if the government hasn’t fully adapted yet.

Screen time limits have dominated the discourse on digital engagement for parents, educators, and society over the past decade. This guidance emerged after research indicated that increased screen time correlates with a higher risk of obesity among children and adolescents. While this was beneficial advice for promoting physical health, it failed to robustly address how the nature and quality of online content impact mental health.

For instance, adhering to this guidance allows one child to enjoy CBeebies alongside their family, stimulating conversation, while another child is isolated with headphones, consuming algorithm-driven YouTube Shorts. The existing “Screen Time” guidance treats both scenarios equivalently. However, they are qualitatively distinct. In the first case, one child experiences interactive and communal viewing with a parent, fostering discussion and connection, while the other child’s viewing experience remains isolated and fragmented. They consume short-form content with limited narratives and character development, often lacking regulatory oversight.

YouTube has become a primary platform for our children’s screen time and is now the leading choice for Generation Alpha’s first television experience. Remarkably, 88% of UK children aged 3 to 17 are using the platform. Yet, YouTube is often overlooked in discussions about social media restrictions, including in Kyle’s statement.

Attempts have been made to differentiate between types of screen time, such as “passive” versus “active” engagement. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health aims for policies that emphasize habits and behavior, categorizing “active screen time” as involving cognitive or physical engagement—like gaming or homework activities—while passive screen time entails low levels of interaction and intellectual involvement. Similarly, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recommends engaging with children about what they watch, fostering opportunities for social, educational, and creative screen time. Unfortunately, these insights have not been fully embraced in public or political dialogues.

While encouraging intentional choices regarding children’s screen content, I do not imply that individual responsibility is the sole solution. We are experiencing a digital public health crisis, as highlighted by General Vivek Murthy, the U.S. Surgeon General, who noted that social media can heighten the risks of anxiety and depression in youth. There is an urgent need for comprehensive policies that tackle the technological and economic frameworks underpinning these platforms. This is where Kyle should focus his efforts.

Meanwhile, the proposals from Kyle should not rely on outdated public guidance. They must be rooted in a nuanced understanding of varied screen use, addressing both physical and mental health concerns while tackling systemic issues in digital platform design. Crucially, they must consider not just the quantity, but also the quality of children’s digital engagement.

Until such changes are made, the onus of responsibility falls on individuals—particularly parents—to ensure their children are learning, engaging, proactive, and safe during screen time. I know this may feel overwhelming. To help, here are some strategies to implement with my kids this summer.

  • For younger children, limited screen time is generally preferable. If screens are used, I recommend watching live TV on platforms like CBeebies or CBBC, emphasizing quality engagement.

  • Prioritize content that encourages active participation over passive consumption. Content that fosters creativity and dialogue supports cognitive engagement and enhances communication skills, often leading to meaningful discussions.

  • Begin instilling critical thinking about digital content early. Use tools like SightEngine to analyze images, helping to distinguish between real and potentially misleading content. This sparks conversation about online misinformation.

  • Engage older children in discussions about a healthy digital diet. Together, commit to actively seeking out positive content for 30 minutes each week, deliberately avoiding uninteresting or negatively skewed material. Teach them that even negative engagement, such as liking or commenting on unfavorable content, contributes to its visibility.

  • As a family, regularly declutter your digital spaces by removing content that no longer inspires or educates. This includes unfollowing unwanted accounts, personalities, and brands to refine your feed to what truly resonates with you.

  • Consider exploring alternative search engines as a family to minimize targeted ads. DuckDuckGo and Firefox Focus do not track users for advertising purposes, and Startpage allows users to utilize Google while maintaining privacy.

While the government may not effectively regulate digital technology, parents still hold the power to guide intentional screen use. By doing so, we can instill concepts of healthy and critical screen engagement from a young age.

  • Dr. Kaitlyn Regehr is the Programme Director for Digital Humanities at University College London, where she lectures on digital literacy and the ethical implications of social media and AI. She is also the author of Smartphone Nation: Exploring our obsession with screens and actionable solutions.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Concerns Arise Over Genetic Screening of Newborns for Rare Diseases

Posted on by
Reply

Rare diseases often elude early diagnosis, remaining undetected until significant organ damage occurs. Recently, UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced a 10-year initiative to integrate genetic testing for specific rare conditions into the standard neonatal screening process across the UK. This approach aims to ensure early intervention before symptoms manifest, aligning with ongoing global viability programs in places like the US and Australia. Yet, questions arise about the scientific validity of such measures.

The genome, akin to a book written in a novel language, is only partially understood. Decades of research on high-risk families have shed light on some genetic mutations, but there remains limited knowledge about the implications of population-level genetic testing for those at low risk. While this screening may prove advantageous for certain children and families, it might also lead to unnecessary tests and treatments for others.

Many genetic conditions involve more than just a single genetic mutation. For example, individuals with a variant of the hnf4a gene and a strong family history of rare diabetes have a 75% risk of developing the condition; conversely, those with the same variant but without a family history face only a 10% risk. It is misleading to assume genetic variants behave uniformly across all populations. Perhaps families carrying the hnf4a variant lack other unrecognized protective genes, or specific environmental factors might interplay with genetic risks to lead to diabetes.

The proposed neonatal screening program presupposes that genetic variants linked to diseases signify equally high risks for all, which is rarely the case. The exploration of disease-related variations in healthy populations is just starting. Until this research is thorough, we will not know how many individuals carry a variant that does not result in illness, possibly due to other protective factors. Should we really subject newborns to genetic hypotheses?

Furthermore, ethical concerns emerge from this initiative. How do we secure informed consent from parents when testing for hundreds of conditions simultaneously? In the near future, a genetic database encompassing all living individuals could become a reality—what safeguards will exist for its use and protection?

Screening newborns is not new, but the scope of conditions included in this initiative, the complexity of interpreting results, and the sensitivity of the information gathered pose unique challenges. I worry that parents may feel compelled to accept the test, yet not all uncertainties will be appropriately managed. I fear that important early life stages could become burdened with unnecessary hospital visits. Additionally, the pressure on parents and pediatricians to decide on potentially invasive testing for healthy infants is concerning.

A prudent step would be to gather more data on the prevalence and behavior of genetic mutations in the wider population before utilizing genetic testing as a speculative screening tool for children. The potential benefits may be overshadowed by significant risks.

Suzanne O’Sullivan is a neurologist and author of The Age of Diagnosis: Illness, Health, and Why Medicine Went Too Far.

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Enhanced Cancer Screening Could Detect Early Cases in Women with Dense Breasts

Posted on by
Reply

High-density breast tissue and tumors resemble each other on scans.

Golodenkov/Shutterstock

Recent research indicates that those with dense breast tissue may gain from an additional round of cancer screening, as a significant trial uncovered tumors that were overlooked in standard mammograms.

In the UK, mammograms—an x-ray scan used for breast cancer screening—are provided for individuals aged 50 to 71. These scans look for white spots that indicate cancer presence. However, around 50% of women in this age range have dense breasts, characterized by a high amount of fibrous and glandular tissue, also appearing white on the scans. This similarity complicates tumor detection.

“The challenge with dense breasts is that cancers may go unnoticed until they grow significantly large, which negatively affects prognosis,” said Thomas Hervich, who wasn’t a part of the study at the Medical University of Vienna in Austria.

To determine whether additional screenings can help, Sarah Vinnicombe and her colleagues at the University of Dundee recruited over 6,000 women aged 50-70 from across the UK. Participants were randomly divided into three groups, each receiving extra screening through advanced x-ray methods such as MRI, ultrasound, or contrast-enhanced mammography.

In this extended screening phase, MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography together identified 85 small tumors—three times as many as detected by ultrasound. Twelve of these tumors were located in milk ducts, suggesting a lower likelihood of spreading beyond the breast. Conversely, the other 73 tumors were invasive, increasing the risk that cancer could migrate into surrounding breast tissue and beyond.

“Detecting these cancers is crucial. They typically grow over time, and finding them within three to four years can lead to larger sizes,” stated Hervich. “Some tumors are aggressive, so I believe supplemental screening could save lives.”

However, it’s uncertain if this will hold true. For instance, a 2021 trial on ovarian cancer screening revealed a decrease in cases but did not correlate with increased longevity. Additionally, some tumors detected may not be cancerous or aggressive. Thus, unnecessary screening could lead to undue anxiety and treatment.

The researchers plan to continue monitoring participants to assess whether supplementary screenings result in saved lives.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

HHS discontinues committees focusing on newborn health screening

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of the Department of Health and Human Services has committed to improving the health of Americans, with a particular emphasis on reducing health burdens among children. Despite this, the department recently removed the Advisory Committee on Newborn and Child Genetic Disorders.

For the past 15 years, the Advisory Committee on Hereditary Disorders in Newborns and Children has played a crucial role in recommending which conditions should be included in the universal screening panel for newborns to the health and human services secretaries.

Kennedy’s focus has been on tracing the origins of a broader spectrum of pediatric diseases such as autism, asthma, and obesity, but rare diseases, mostly genetic, remain a significant public health concern. In the United States, around 15 million children have rare diseases, most of which are genetic.

Screenings of newborns identify about 14,000 babies each year with potentially life-threatening conditions, according to the National Agency for Rare Disability (NORD). Early diagnosis at birth provides parents with valuable intervention opportunities, usually most effective before symptoms manifest.

While individual states determine which conditions to screen for, most follow the federally recommended uniform screening panel. Volunteer scientists and medical professionals on the advisory board primarily shape the screening panel with their recommendations.

Allison Herrity, senior policy analyst at NORD, expressed disappointment at the dissolution of the committee and its impact on the process of adding new conditions to the screening panel.

The Internal HHS email reviewed by NBC News confirmed the abrupt end of the committee on April 3, without any explanation. This decision has left room for speculation and hope that the committee may be reinstated to address the pressing need for identifying and treating rare genetic disorders in newborns.

Dr. Sean McCandless, Director of Genetics and Metabolism at Colorado Children’s Hospital, emphasized the importance of early diagnosis and treatment, especially for conditions like MLD and DMD, which have available therapies to improve patients’ quality of life.

However, the removal of the advisory committee poses a threat to the inclusion of new conditions in the Universal Panel. Without a structured approach like the committee, ensuring comprehensive and evidence-based screening for new conditions becomes challenging.

McCandless and other healthcare professionals have appealed to Kennedy to reinstate the advisory board to align with his vision of a healthier America. Advocates are concerned about the future of universal screening and fear disparities between states in offering comprehensive screenings.

They stress the importance of an independent body like the advisory committee to ensure that screening recommendations are based on scientific evidence rather than external influences.

There is a call for a more streamlined process for adding conditions to the screening panel to keep pace with advancements in treatments and medical knowledge, ultimately benefiting children and families affected by rare genetic disorders.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Hair Tests for Autism Screening

Posted on by
Reply

summary

  • Tests designed to identify biomarkers associated with autism have become available in most states.
  • The test is intended to help doctors rule out autism in children who are likely to do so.
  • The results are based on metabolic analysis that requires only the hair chain, but experts say more research is needed.

Tests designed to identify biomarkers associated with autism in infants and young children are open to the public in most states.

New Jersey startup Linusbio began testing on Thursday called Clearstrand-ASD. This test requires only one strand of hair.

This test is neither designed to diagnose autism spectrum disorder nor to be used alone. Instead, it aims to help doctors rule out autism in children, which is likely to be the case. This may be because the child has a sibling with autism or demonstrated behaviors related to the disorder.

Manish Arora, co-founder of Linusbio and its CEO, said Clearstrand-ASD is the only biochemical test available to detect autism spectrum disorder in children under 18 months of age. He hopes it will make the process of eliminating autism more efficiently and reduce the waiting time for those who need intervention or treatment the most.

“The focus is really on early intervention,” Alora said. “The sooner you intervene, the better your kids will.”

This test uses children’s hair to analyze the history of metabolism. Metabolic history tells the story of substances or toxins that have been exposed or processed over time, Arora previously told NBC News. His research has identified patterns of Metal exposure or metabolism dysregulation Some evidence suggests that it may be related to autism. Hair can provide a kind of timeline of what is happening in a child’s body, including patterns of metal exposure at certain stages of development.

“We can detect a clear rhythm of autism with about a centimeter of hair,” Arora previously told NBC News, and what the environment was like during a certain period of growth when a wooden ring was growing. We compared the dynamics and ways in which the story can be told.

The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the Clearstrand ASD test. However, as of Thursday, it is available to consumers in 44 states. If only I could pay $2,750. (I am not eligible for insurance coverage yet.) This test can be ordered directly from a primary care provider or Linusbio. This sets up the appointments of the independent physicians and telehealth that it offers, Arora said.

“You come to us, you get a prescription from an independent clinician. We’ll send you a kit. You’ll get results within about three weeks,” he said.

Diagnostic aid is still in the early stages of development, with limited data supporting its effectiveness. On Thursday, Linusbio shared several new first findings at the Metabolomics and Human Health Conference in Ventura, California. In a group of 490 children in California, who are at high risk for autism spectrum disorder, the test was able to eliminate it with an accuracy of around 92.5%, the company said. However, the results are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

2022 study on the company’s methodologyWe analyzed another Linusbio test published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine and found that it was still under development and that the methodology accurately predicts autism diagnosis (positive and negative) about 81% of the time .

The test is one of several promising ideas researchers are pursuing as a way to identify or exclude autism early in their children’s lives. Other scientists are considering eye tracking, blood tests and audio analysis as possible methods.

ClearStrand-ASD works by running the laser on the length of the hair being tested, turning the hair into a plasma that can be processed with machine learning algorithms. The results of the full analysis are expected within 3 weeks, after which the parents of the child participate in the follow-up telehealth appointment.

External experts said that while Linusbio’s hair strand test is promising, more research is needed.

“For me, this feels like it’s not the earliest, it’s on the early side of things. Stephen, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri School of Medicine and Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopment, Stephen, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri School of Medicine and Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopment. Schenkop said: “This seems like an approach that could become part of a set of ways children can be screened for concern, but it’s more. It’s at the stage where you need evidence of that.

Sheinkopf works closely with primary care physicians who are concerned about the possibility of autism by families with young children who are careful to monitor their development and screen for autism. It suggested that there was.

“Sometimes, I see new shiny tools. I want to skip what’s already available,” he said.

Sheinkopf also noted parents who have evidence of differences in child development You can seek federally mandated services without a formal diagnosis.

Seeking a diagnosis of autism in a child can take a long time. American Academy of Pediatrics Autism screening is recommended at 18 and 24 months. Neurological tests, language assessment, behavioral observation, and other methods are ultimately used to diagnose children.

By helping to rule out autism in some children, Arora has given priority to the attention of those most needy, and wait times for families seeking care and treatment. He said he hopes it can be shortened.

Rebeccaranda, executive director of the Center for Autism Services, Science and Innovation at Kennedy Krieger Institute, a Baltimore pediatric care center focused on developmental disorders, has a shortage of experts to help diagnose and treat autism. He said he is doing it. That’s why she hopes that the test will make the child’s flow to professionals more efficient.

“It can accelerate the speed at which children are seen, and like that, children with very low chances of autism sit in a pipeline waiting to meet some kind of expert. Not,” she said.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Can MRI scans improve the accuracy of prostate cancer screening?

Posted on by
Reply

MRI scans may improve prostate cancer screening accuracy

Skynesher/Getty Images

There is both good news and bad news when it comes to prostate cancer testing. First, the bad news. Blood tests that measure a compound called prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are too inaccurate. As a result, some men end up undergoing cancer treatments they didn’t actually need, causing incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

On the other hand, combining a PSA test with an MRI scan of the prostate can make screening more accurate, especially if double testing is recommended only for people at high risk of tumors. An expert group called the Lancet Committee on Prostate Cancer made this recommendation in a new report.

We certainly need to rethink prostate screening, but will these new proposals succeed in reducing harm?

Prostate testing has long been controversial. PSA is released at high levels by cancerous prostate cells, but is also produced at low levels by healthy prostate cells.

Blood tests were introduced as a way to track the success of cancer treatment. It began being used as a screening test in the 1990s, in part as a result of a campaign by men’s health groups for something comparable to breast cancer testing.

The problem is that PSA alone is not reliable as a screening tool. Levels may rise temporarily, such as after sex, during a urinary tract infection, or while riding a bicycle. Even if the increase continues, most prostate cancers grow so slowly that if left untreated, they will never be noticed or cause any problems.

These problems wouldn’t be so important if it weren’t for the fact that the treatments used to remove the cancer (usually surgery or injecting radioactive material into the tumor) can cause permanent incontinence and erectile dysfunction. It would have been. Biopsies to determine whether cancer is present can also cause these problems.

randomized trial It has been shown that for every 1,000 men who undergo regular PSA testing, one fewer man will die from prostate cancer over a 10-year period, but three will remain incontinent and 25 will remain impotent.

These disturbing figures are forcing health services in most high-income countries, including the UK and Australia, into uneasy compromises. Unlike breast and colorectal cancer tests, no invitations for prostate tests will be sent out, but those who wish to undergo the test can take it if the risks are explained to them.

As a result, higher-income men are more likely to take the PSA test, and lower-income and black men are less likely to be tested, the new report says. This is unfortunate because men of African descent are about twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as men of European descent.

The report’s authors say health systems need to use more sophisticated forms of screening, including both PSA tests and MRI scans. This scan allows your doctor to assess the size of your prostate and identify suspicious areas that may be cancerous.

Something close to this dual method is already in place in some countries, including the UK, where the next step for people found to have high PSA levels is an MRI scan. This means that people who are reassured by their scan results can avoid a more invasive biopsy. “This greatly reduces the problem of overdiagnosis,” he says. nicholas james, a researcher at the Institute of Cancer Research in London and one of the authors of the report.

But James says it may be even better to combine the PSA test with an MRI scan before the results are fed back to avoid men being mistakenly told they may have cancer.

The committee says health care organizations should use this combined approach to launch formal screening campaigns targeting three groups known to be at high risk. Black men, people with a family history of prostate cancer, and men who have a mutation in one of their prostate cancers. BRCA Genes also associated with breast cancer.

This would avoid the current situation where men at low risk are probably getting too many PSA tests, while men at high risk are getting too few or no PSA tests.

The proposal is certainly suggestive, but it remains to be seen whether it will discourage people from getting prostate exams. recently” cure cancer phobia.

The arrival of the PSA test may be like opening a Pandora’s box, James says, but the proposed new approach will likely alleviate at least some of the harm.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com