May 21st, 2009 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips
No Comments »
Patients I’ve seen who succeeded in quitting, sometimes tell me what it was that enabled them to quit this time when they had been unsuccessful many times before. Sometimes it was a change in personal circumstances, sometimes an aspect of the treatment we gave them, but sometimes they tell me there was a single thought, tip or piece of information that stuck in their mind and really helped.
So I thought I’d share a few of those thoughts or tips that helped others, and ask readers to share the things that helped them most. Here are a few:
1. “Move a muscle, change a thought”
This phrase stuck on one patient’s head as a reminder that when he was sitting and bored and starting to crave a smoke, he should get up, and get busy to help shake the thought of a cigarette from his mind.
2. “My cigarettes are radioactive”
The information that cigarette smoke contains radioactive chemicals like polonium-210 really stuck in the mind of one ex-smoker and helped her stay off them.It is estimated that smokers of 1.5 packs of cigarettes a day are exposed to as much radiation as they would receive from 300 chest X-rays a year.
In case you don’t mind polonium, here are some other substances found in cigarette smoke:
Ammonia: Household cleaner
Arsenic: Used as a poison
Benzene: Used in making dyes
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid
Cadmium: Used in car batteries
Cyanide: Deadly poison
Lead: Poisonous in high doses
Formaldehyde: Used to preserve dead specimens
3. “Get rid of ALL tobacco and lighters from the house and car”
Many smokers have told me that this was the single most important piece of advice they followed. They said that many times the cravings were so strong that if they had cigarettes in the house they would have smoked them. But having very thoroughly cleared them out of the house gave them some peace of mind and bought them enough time to deal with the cravings when they occurred.
I’d be interested to hear from readers what their most helpful tip or piece of information was when quitting smoking. Feel free to use the comment section to post your favorites.
This post, Tips To Help You Quit Smoking, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
May 20th, 2009 by Harriet Hall, M.D. in Better Health Network
No Comments »
There is no question that patients on insulin benefit from home monitoring. They need to adjust their insulin dose based on their blood glucose readings to avoid ketoacidosis or insulin shock. But what about patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes, those who are being treated with diet and lifestyle changes or oral medication? Do they benefit from home monitoring? Does it improve their blood glucose levels? Does it make them feel more in control of their disease?
This has been an area of considerable controversy. Various studies have given conflicting results. Those studies have been criticized for various flaws: some were retrospective, non-randomized, not designed to rule out confounding factors, high drop-out rate, subjects already had well-controlled diabetes, etc. A systematic review showed no benefit from monitoring. So a new prospective, randomized, controlled, community based study was designed to help resolve the conflict.
O’Kane et al studied 184 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes who had never used insulin or had any previous experience with blood glucose monitoring. They were under the age of 70 and recruited from community referrals to hospital outpatient clinics, so they were likely representative of patients commonly seen in practice. They were randomized to monitoring or no monitoring. Patients in the monitoring group were given glucose meters and were instructed in their use and in appropriate responses to high or low readings, such as dietary review or exercise. They were asked to take four fasting and four postprandial readings every week for a year. Patients in the no monitoring group were specifically asked NOT to acquire a glucose monitor or do any kind of self-testing. Otherwise, the two groups were treated alike with diabetes education and an identical treatment algorithm based on HgbA1C levels.
Their findings:
We were unable to identify any significant effect of self monitoring over one year on HbA1c, BMI, use of oral hypoglycaemic drugs, or reported incidence of hypoglycaemia. Furthermore, monitoring was associated with a 6% higher score on the well-being depression subscale.
So home monitoring not only did no good but it made patients feel worse. Why? Perhaps because they were constantly reminded that they had a disease and worried when blood glucose levels rose, especially when the recommended responses of dietary review and exercise didn’t rapidly lead to lower readings.
We would not accept the results of one isolated study without replication, but in this case the new study adds significantly to the weight of previous evidence and arguably tips the balance enough to justify a change in practice.
The American Diabetes Association still says “Experts feel that anyone with diabetes can benefit from checking their blood glucose.” But they only recommend blood glucose checks if you have diabetes and are:
• taking insulin or diabetes pills
• on intensive insulin therapy
• pregnant
• having a hard time controlling your blood glucose levels
• having severe low blood glucose levels or ketones from high blood glucose levels
• having low blood glucose levels without the usual warning signs
Diabetes experts see the severe, complicated cases and have a different perspective from that of the family physician seeing mostly mild and uncomplicated cases. An article in American Family Physician said
Except in patients taking multiple insulin injections, home monitoring of blood glucose levels has questionable utility, especially in relatively well-controlled patients. Its use should be tailored to the needs of the individual patient.
An editorial in the BMJ pointed out that
Home blood glucose monitoring is a big business. The main profit for the manufacturing industry comes from the blood glucose testing strips. Some £90m was spent on testing strips in the United Kingdom in 2001, 40% more than was spent on oral hypoglycaemic agents.2 New types of meters are usually not subject to the same rigorous evaluation of cost effectiveness, compared with existing models, as new pharmaceutical agents are.
If the scientific evidence supporting the role of home blood glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes was subject to the same critical evaluation that is applied to new pharmaceutical agents, then it would perhaps not have been approved for use by patients.
Conclusion
Home glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes is not justified by the evidence. It does not improve outcome, it is expensive, and it may decrease the quality of life of patients.
Common sense suggested monitoring should improve outcome. We had assumed it would work. Scientists thought to question that assumption. They found a way to test that assumption. New evidence showed that it was a false assumption. In response to that evidence, the practice is now being abandoned. This is how science is supposed to work. Another small triumph for science-based medicine.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
May 18th, 2009 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network
No Comments »
I’ve previously written about what face-to-face smoking cessation services typically do, largely based on my own experience. However, while at the SRNT annual conference I met two Smoking Cessation Advisors working in Lancashire, England who appeared to have a successful service, so thought it worth sharing some of their information.
Jan Holding and Eileen Ward manage a UK National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Service in Lancashire in the north of England. Both are nurses by training and many of the 14 staff providing the treatment have primarily a nursing background. Their service sees around 450 new clients per month (i.e. over 5000 new clients per year). Services are provided at “community sessions” at various locations all over their catchment area, and clients are given their own hand-held record which they keep, and take with them to sessions, enabling them to attend whichever community location suits them at the time. While clients can make scheduled appointments, the service is also flexible, allowing clients to “drop-in” to community sessions without an appointment. Although some initial assessment sessions take place in a group format, most of the sessions are delivered in a one-to-one format via a relatively brief discussion with a smoking cessation advisor. These community sessions often take place in a large community room from 4pm to 8 pm in the evening, with multiple types of services being provided in the same room at the same time at different corners (e.g. initial assessments in one corner, prescribing of varenicline in another, and nicotine replacement therapy in another). It is not uncommon for around 200 clients to attend a single community session.
Clients are frequently encouraged to use NRT prior to quitting smoking (about half do this) and usually use more than one smoking cessation medicine (more than half do). Nicotine replacement therapy is provided via a voucher system requiring either no cost to the client, or just a co-pay (around $10 USD).
The service runs 6 days per week and includes evening sessions, and aims to reduce most of the usual barriers to entering treatment. Their “3 As” approach emphasizes “Accessibility, Availability and Adaptability”. They also specifically try to develop smoking cessation advisors who are passionate about their role, have a positive attitude to the importance of quitting smoking, and are therefore very committed to that work, as well as being knowledgeable about it.
My understanding is that the quit rates at this service are pretty good. But perhaps the best testimony to its success is the fantastic volume of clients who attend…..largely influenced by positive word-of-mouth via other clients. The success of this service reminds us that there isn’t just one way to do it, that all smoking cessation counselors and systems may need to be flexible and adaptable in order to help as many smokers to quit as possible.
For further information on what a smokers’ clinic does, see: What does a tobacco treatment clinic do?
This post, Smoking Cessation Programs: Lessons From The UK, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
May 17th, 2009 by DrRob in Better Health Network
1 Comment »
Before you get too “conspiracy theory” on me, let me assure you that I am not going to talk about how the influenza virus pandemic is the work of terrorists (unless the Napoleon and Snowball are trying to take over our farm). I am also not suggesting that children are terrorists (although some do raise my suspicion).
The virus that brought such worry and even panic seems now to be “fizzling out” and people are now questioning if the authorities and the press overreacted to the threat. Will this be a replay of the “boy who cried wolf” and have us complacent when a real threat comes? One writer questioned if the flu “overreaction” was “more costly than the virus itself.“ Another article cites an Australian professor (of what, the article did not say) who stated that “the country would be better off declaring a pandemic of some of the real health problems it has, like diabetes and obesity.”
The real din, however is in the countless letters to the editor and calls to radio talk-show hosts mocking the “alarmism” put forth by the WHO and others about this flu. This does appear to be in the minority, as one poll said that 83% of Americans were satisfied with the management of the outbreak by public authorities. Still, I suspect the volume of the dissent and sniping at the non-serious nature of the pandemic so far will only increase over time. The number of people who know better than public health officials will multiply.
This pandemic is a catch-22 for public health officials, as an excellent article on the subject states:
The irony is that the overreaction backlash will be more severe the more successful the public health measures are. If, for example, the virus peters out this spring because transmission was interrupted long enough for environmental conditions (whatever they are) to tip the balance against viral spread, CDC and local health officials will be accused of over reacting.
Which brings me to the connection to terrorism. If public authorities somehow thought there was a 10% chance that New York City would be hit with another major terrorist attack, how big should their reaction be? If they suspected that there was a reasonable probability, say 5%, that the subways would be flooded with sarin gas, should they shut them down? I would certainly hope they wouldn’t leave that many people open to the chance of death.
And what is the best outcome? The best outcome is that this is an overreaction. The best outcome is that the terrorists, in fact, have reformed and are instead joining the Professional Bowling tour. I would welcome this outcome (not to mention the exciting infusion of young talent to the tour). The problem is, the officials have no idea how it will play itself out. Truth be told, since 9/11, there have not been any major terrorist attacks in the US. Does this mean that the money spent on the department of homeland security has been wasted?
As a pediatrician, I am very accustomed to overreaction. If you bring in your 20 day-old child to my office with a fever of 102, I will do the following:
- Admit them immediately to the hospital
- Draw blood tests looking for serious infection
- Check a urinalysis to make sure there isn’t an infection (using a catheter to get the sample)
- Start IV antibiotics as soon as possible
- Perform a spinal tap to rule out meningitis.
This seems a little over-the-top, doesn’t it? The child just has a fever! The problem is that children this age with a fever caused by a virus look identical to those who have meningitis. By the time their appearance differentiates, it is too late. This forces me to do the full work-up on every infant with fever and treat each one as if they have meningitis or some other serious infection. I do this despite the fact that the cases of meningitis are far outnumbered by that of less serious problems.
If this is your child, don’t you want me to do that?
Knowing what we know about pandemics, the same caution was, in my opinion, absolutely the right thing to do. If the virus turns out to be nothing serious, hallelujah. I don’t want my patients (or family members) dying at the rate that some of the previous H1N1 viruses caused. I want this to be a lot of worry for “nothing.” Please let it be so.
But I still don’t think it is time to relax. As one commenter on an earlier post I wrote about this pandemic stated:
It’s still a bit early to relax. The 1918 flu went around first in the spring and was very mild – kinda like this. Then it came back in the fall after incubating and mutating and was a killer.
I think the CDC and WHO probably will be concerned about this until next year, at least. Just to be on the safe side.
Remember that that flu, which was mild in the spring, went on to kill 20-100 million people.
For this reason, I hope the voices of reason win out over the armchair quarterbacks that don’t have to make these decisions that could mean the life or death of millions. Will you tell me that evacuating the NY subways wouldn’t be a good thing on the threat of Sarin gas? Would you criticize me for “overreacting” if your infant with a fever turned out to just have an upper respiratory infection? I hope not.
If you would, then that gives us ample reason to ignore your opinions on how this flu was handled.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
