ParentDish

Cellphones Don't Raise Risk of Brain Tumors in Kids, Study Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens, Health

Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Put down that cell phone, child! It'll rot your brain and give you cancer!

No reason to put the fear of God into your iPhone-loving kid. We can't comment on the brain rot, but a new study does show that children who use cell phones have no greater risk of getting brain cancer than kids who don't use them, Reuters reports.

Researchers looked at brain tumor patients ages 7 to 19, to gauge their risk of getting cancer from cellphones, and found the patients weren't any more apt to be phone fanatics than the control subjects who were cancer-free, according to the news service.

"If mobile phone use would be a risk factor, you'd expect cancer patients to have a higher amount of usage," Professor Martin Roosli, who conducted the study, published this week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, tells Reuters. The research was partly funded by cellphone operators, the news service adds, although they had no part in the study's design, analysis or interpretation of data.

The World Health Organization said in May that cellphone use could increase the risk of some types of brain tumors, Reuters reports. But this study didn't find a connection.

"What we found was that there was no (significant) difference in the amount of use," Roosli tells the news service, adding that any risk "would be a really small risk."

Roosli tells Reuters future studies should look at longer-term use of cellphone use among kids.

"(This study) provides quite some evidence that use of less than five years does not increase the chance of a brain tumor, but naturally we don't have a lot of long-term users," he tells the news service.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Parents' Attitude Affects Kids' Diabetes

Tom Henderson — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Special Needs, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens, Health

Credit: Getty Images

Kids with diabetes need to regulate their diets, monitor their blood-sugar levels and take the appropriate amount of insulin.

They also need parents with the right attitude.

Researchers at the Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel find that parenting styles and attitudes play a big role in how well teenagers manage their diabetes.

Internal Medicine News reports lead researcher Maayan Shorer and her colleagues defined three parenting styles:

Authoritative. This is characterized by clear limits on the child set by the parents in a caring, noncoercive manner.
Permissive. This is characterized by few efforts by the parents to direct and limit the child's behavior.
Authoritarian. This is characterized by a coercive, harsh and punitive approach and parental attempts to control the child's behavior.

Researchers looked at 100 adolescents, as well as 79 mothers and 63 fathers, and found an authoritative approach, especially by fathers, resulted in kids doing a better job managing their diabetes. On the flip side, kids did a lot worse when parents were either permissive or authoritarian.

The worst results came when kids picked up on a sense of helplessness, especially among mothers.

There are several morals to the story, researchers tell Internal Medicine News. One of the biggies is that dads need to get more involved.

"Unfortunately, our clinical experience along with the empirical evidence suggests that compared with mothers, fathers tend to take a too-small role in their child's diabetes management and exert fewer efforts at monitoring the child," Shorer says. "We believe fathers should be more engaged in their child's routine diabetes care, and to do so, specifically, by adopting an authoritative stance."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Crossing the Street Can Be Risky for Kids With ADHD

Tom Henderson — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Special Needs, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

Credit: Getty Images

Albert Einstein may have helped unlock the secrets of the universe, but something as simple as crossing the street might have been difficult for him.

It's really not that simple. There are some pretty complicated physics involved. For one thing, your body and your mind have to occupy the same point in the time-space continuum. Your body can't be at Fourth and Main while your brain is somewhere in the Pleiades star cluster.

Kids with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have a similar problem, according to researchers in Alabama.

Because these kids are what we used to refer to less clinically as "absent-minded," researchers say, they sometimes make incorrect decisions about when to cross the street and how long it will take to the get to other side.

WebMD reports some 5 percent of the American population has ADHD, a behavioral condition marked by impulsiveness, hyperactivity and (seeming) inattention. They can actually be quite attentive. It just may be to last Saturday's episode of "Doctor Who" instead of looking both ways at the intersection.

That's the problem, according to research presented in the journal Pediatrics.

"I came in thinking that kids with ADHD probably won't look left and right before they cross, but they did display appropriate curbside behavior," Despina Stavrinos, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Injury Control Research Center, tells WebMD. "The big difference occurred in the outcome of cross."

Researchers looked at 78 children ages 7 to 10. They tested the kids' ability to cross streets using a simulated street scene with cars approaching from the left and right. All the children looked left and right before crossing and waited to cross.

But the 39 children with ADHD had more "close calls" with oncoming traffic and less time to spare when they reached the other side.

Medicating kids -- a popular response to ADHD -- might not help, Stavrinos tells WebMD. A lot of ADHD kids take meds in the morning, but they wear off by the afternoon. They also take "medication holidays" during the summer when they're outside more.

However, Stravinos adds studies of drivers with ADHD have shown that treatment can improve driving performance.

In the meantime, she tells WebMD, "parents may need to delay the age at which they allow children with ADHD to cross the street independently."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Texas Study Shows Majority of Middle, High School Students Suspended or Expelled

Lesley Kennedy — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens

Credit: Getty Images

You don't mess with Texas, and, if you're in school there, you definitely don't wanna mess with the administration.

The New York Times reports a study by the Council of State Governments released earlier this week finds 31 percent of Lone Star State students were expelled or suspended off campus at least once while they were in middle or high school, averaging four times per student.

And, as far as in-school suspensions go? The rate hit nearly 60 percent, with one in seven students facing that punishment at least 11 times, according to the newspaper.

As a result: lower graduation rates and higher crime rates later in life, The Times notes, adding that minority students faced harsher punishments more often than white students.

"In the last 20 to 25 years, there have been dramatic increases in the number of suspensions and expulsions," Michael Thompson, director of the Justice Center at the Council of State Governments, tells the newspaper. "This quantifies how you're in the minority if you have not been removed from the classroom at least once. This is not just being sent to the principal's office, and it's not after-school detention or weekend detention or extra homework. This is in the student's record."

Plano Independent School District Superintendent Doug Otto tells The Times the study data shows "suspensions are a little too easy."

"Once they become automatic, we've really hurt that child's chances to receive a high school diploma," he tells the newspaper. "We've got to find ways to keep those kids in school. Don't get me wrong - we have to provide safe environments for all the other kids. But you have to balance it out and cut down the suspensions and expulsions."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

TV Tells Kids Fame is the Most Important Thing in Life, Study Finds

Tom Henderson — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Tween Culture, Teen Culture, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens

Credit: Getty Images

The most important thing in life is to be a good and kind person, to love yourself and others and take an active and inquisitive interest in the world arou ...

Whoa!

Someone is watching reruns of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" on Sunday mornings. Change the channel. That's not what television is teaching kids, according to researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The most important thing in life is to be famous. And you don't even have to be famous for being good. You can be famous for being tan.

LiveScience reports researchers looked at the values promoted on television when today's adults were growing up as opposed to what their kids watched. Their conclusion?

Ron Howard can be very proud of himself.

Before he was a film director, he played Opie Taylor on "The Andy Griffith Show" and Richie Cunningham on "Happy Days." Researchers used both shows -- as well as "The Lucy Show" and "Laverne & Shirley" -- to compare with modern shows like "American Idol" and "Hannah Montana."

They specifically wanted to study the values these shows promoted among 9- to 11-year-olds from 1967 to 2007.

Researchers found the old shows exalted benevolence, self-acceptance, community and tradition, while modern shows stress fame as the No. 1 value.

A sense of community was the No. 1 value back when Fonzie and the gang ruled the airwaves in the 1970s. By 2007, researchers found that value fell to No. 11. The top five values nowadays? Fame, achievement, popularity, image and financial success.

Not cool, as the Fonz would say.

"The rise of fame in preteen television may be one influence in the documented rise of narcissism in our culture," researcher Patricia Greenfield, a psychology professor at UCLA, tells LiveScience. "Popular television shows are part of the environment that causes the increased narcissism, but they also reflect the culture."

In 1997, the top five values were community feeling, benevolence (being kind and helping others), image, tradition and self-acceptance. In 2007, benevolence dropped to the 12th spot, while financial success went from 12th place in 1967 and 1997 to fifth in 2007.

The two least emphasized values in 2007 were spiritualism (No. 16) and tradition (No. 15). Tradition had previously ranked No. 4 in 1997.

LiveScience reports researchers analyzed Nielsen demographic data to determine the most popular shows with 9- to 11-year-olds and then conducted a survey of 60 participants, ages 18 to 59, to determine how important each value was in episodes of the various shows.

"The biggest change occurred from 1997 to 2007, when YouTube, Facebook and Twitter exploded in popularity," lead researcher Yalda Uhls tells LiveScience. "Their growth parallels the rise in narcissism and the drop in empathy among college students in the United States, as other research has shown."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Swedish Researchers Tie Folic Acid to Good Grades

Tom Henderson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

Credit: Getty Images

Hey, kids, want to grow up to be super smart like some sort of Swedish researcher?

Be sure to eat lots and lots of (eeewww!) okra. OK, maybe you can stick to Beef-a-Roni. The important thing is to get enough folic acid. Both okra and pasta are loaded with folic acid and the Vitamin B some researchers say led to better grades in Sweden.

Then again, that's Sweden.

"There is very little deficiency of folic acid in North America," Deborah O'Connor, a nutrition researcher, tells Reuters. "If you're already sufficient, there is not a lot of evidence that taking more supplements will help."

The Swedish study, published in the journal Pediatrics, may involve teenagers who didn't get enough folic acid, she adds.

We're big on folic acid in this country. Lack of Vitamin B during pregnancy can cause severe birth defects, so certain foods are fortified with folic acid (also called folate) in North America. O'Connor tells Reuters most people get enough of the stuff.

During the Swedish study, Reuters reports, researchers did not fortify foods, and kids didn't use a lot of supplements.

What makes the study unique is that it is among the first to examine links between folic acid and academic achievement, Torbjorn Nilsson of Orebro University Hospital tells Reuters.

Nilsson and his team studied 386 teenagers who were finishing up ninth grade. When their grades from 10 core classes were added up, there was a clear difference between teens who got the most and the least folic acid.

Even O'Connor calls the results "pretty significant."

Still, she tells Reuters, questions linger.

"It's not a randomized controlled trial, so you always wonder, are there other things going on that you weren't able to control for?" she says. "Like most studies, it probably raises more questions than it answers."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

When Schools Report Students' Weight to Parents, Changes Seldom Happen, Study Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

Researcher says schools should be more pro-active when it comes to notifying parents of obese children. Credit: John Moore, Getty Images

So, your kid got an B- in math, a C in science and totally flunked when it came to his weight last semester? If only that last piece of info had been included in his report card, maybe you would have him hitting the gym, as well as the books, this summer.

In California, nearly all public schools have been keeping track of students' height and weight when they are fifth, seventh and ninth graders for 10 years, but not all are passing that info on to parents, Reuters reports. And, a new study shows, even when schools do notify parents when their kids are obese or overweight, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Dr. Kristine A. Madsen of the University of California, San Francisco, tells Reuters kids didn't lose any more weight when their parents were told they had pounds to shed than students whose parents were not notified.

"Physical education is probably the most underused public health tool we have," she tells the news service. "We really would urge schools to make sure their environments are supporting physical activity to the extent possible."

Madsen tells Reuters schools also should try a little harder to reach parents -- sending a letter, the way most were notified, may not be enough, and terms such as "body mass index" were used instead of words like "obesity," which could lead to confusion.

"Even if they see the letter, we think they may not get the message," she tells the news service.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Soldiers' Children Often Face Long Term Psychological Issues, Study Shows

Tom Henderson — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 12:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens

Ongoing wars taken a psychological toll on children. Credit: Majid Saeedi, Getty Images

They used to call it "battle fatigue" -- the psychological toll taken on soldiers in war.

However, soldiers are not the only casualties. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, Reuters news service reports on the grim psychological price paid by the soldiers' children.

Researchers analyzed medical records of 307,520 children of soldiers on active duty and found 17 percent of them had mental health problems. The study is published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

"Children of parents who spent more time deployed between 2003 and 2006 fared worse than children whose parents were deployed for a shorter duration," researchers wrote.

Lead researcher Alyssa Mansfield, who was at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill when the study was conducted, tells Reuters children with parents deployed at least once, for an average of 11 months, as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan are especially vulnerable.

They are likely to suffer from adjustment, behavioral, depressive or stress disorders. Mansfield adds boys are more likely to have mental health problems than girls.

"We used to think about deployment as a single experience: I go, I'm away, it's difficult and then I come back. Well, it's a way of life in the military that deployments continue to occur and families have to manage the consequences," Stephen Cozza, a psychiatry professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, tells Reuters.

"These are consequences that aren't necessarily short-term," he adds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Parents Quit Smoking (For Awhile) When Kids Have Surgery

Tom Henderson — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens

Kicking the habit is hard, even when you're doing it for kids. Credit:Noel Celis, Getty Images

Parents who smoke are more likely to quit if their child goes through surgery, a study shows. They worry about the effect secondhand smoke will have on the child as he or she recovers.

Then they start smoking again.

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic found a child's surgery may inspire parents to quit smoking, but they have no better chance than anyone else of kicking the habit permanently.

According to US News & World Report, researchers studied 1,112 children who lived with at least one person who smoked. When a child or parent had surgery, the magazine reporters, the smoker was likely to quit. But the attempt was more likely to succeed only if it was the parent having surgery.

About one in seven U.S. children who undergo surgery are chronically exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes, the magazine reports.

Secondhand smoke can increase the risk of respiratory complications associated with anesthesia. In adults, smoking after surgery has been shown to increase the risks of lung and cardiac complications and infections to the wound.

"Our current findings suggest that having a child undergo surgery can serve as a teachable moment for quit attempts," lead researcher David Warner tells the magazine.

"The scheduling of children for surgery may present us with an opportunity to provide tobacco interventions to parents, who are apparently more motivated to at least try to quit -- but who need assistance to succeed."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Candy May Not Make You All That Fat, Study Says

Tom Henderson — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

Credit: Getty Images

Candy makes kids fat, right?

Ha! Wrong, Captain Tofu!

Revenge could be sweet for the candy crowd. The Vancouver Sun reports a new study finds kids who eat candy weigh less and are less likely be overweight than their counterparts munching on carrots.

This revolutionary study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a big chunk of the funding came from the National Confectioners Association. You know, the people who make candy.

Great, so this may be a little like the International Brotherhood of Heroin Pushers Local 839 funding a study that concludes heavy narcotics are essential for building strong bones and teeth.

Still, data is data.

Researchers at Louisiana State University (hardly puppets of Big Chocolate) found kids who ate candy were 22 percent less likely to be overweight and 28 percent less likely to be obese.

So stick that in your bean curd, and do whatever is you do with bean curd. (What? You eat it? Gross!)

Carol O'Neil, a registered dietitian and professor at Louisiana State University's Agricultural Center, led researchers in tracking the eating habits of kids ages 2 to 17 between 1999 and 2004.

While chocolate is indisputably the food of the gods, O'Neil tells the Vancouver Sun she is not suggesting parents fill the family swimming pool with M&Ms in lieu of dinner. In fact, even though young candy eaters aren't getting fat, she still called their their diets "abysmal."

"Children need to eat better than they are eating now," O'Neil tells the Sun. "Candy can certainly be used as some sort of celebratory treat or an occasional treat."

Her study, she adds, is not "a hall pass to eat what you want."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Concussion Dangers to Young Athletes Affirmed by Study

Associated Press — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens

Credit: Corbis

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - A new study highlights the heightened danger to young athletes who suffer concussions and sustain new head blows before they've fully recovered.

The study, published Monday in Pediatrics, dug into the National Registry of Sudden Death in Young Athletes, a database maintained by the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, to focus on deaths from blunt trauma among players 21 and younger. Previous studies from the data focused on deaths from cardiovascular problems.

A key finding, author Dr. Barry Maron said in an interview, was a worrisome number of prep football players who died of head and neck blows after they had already sustained concussions a few days to four weeks beforehand. Maron said it comes at a time of growing awareness about concussions, including the dangers of "second-impact syndrome."

The registry listed 1,827 sudden deaths among young athletes from 1980-2009. Fourteen percent of them, or 261, were caused by trauma-related injuries. Trauma fatalities were most frequent in football at 148, including 17 high school players who died of head or neck injuries after they had already sustained concussions a few days to four weeks beforehand.

In general, the authors wrote, trauma deaths among young athletes are relatively uncommon, and they're four times less common than cardiovascular deaths. The average has remained relatively constant around nine per year. "Nevertheless, these catastrophic events remain an important public health issue with a devastating effect on families, communities, and physicians," the study said.

The study said most of the deaths were preventable and showed the importance of better equipment, better protocols for when injured athletes should return to action, and possible changes in blocking and tackling rules.

Dr. Joel Brenner, incoming chairman of the Council on Sports, Medicine and Fitness of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the study contains important new information.

"It gives credence to everything we've been trying to do to make it safer for young athletes out there with proper treatment of concussions," said Brenner, medical director of the sports medicine program at Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk, Va.

Given recent moves across the country to bar athletes with concussions from playing until they've fully recovered, the study also hit home for Jon Almquist, head of the athletic training program for Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia. He said the 17 deaths were probably preventable.

"Maybe that catastrophic number can take a dip because of the changing awareness and changing concussion protocols," said Almquist, who chairs the secondary school athletic trainers committee of the National Athletic Trainers Association.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. This article was written by Steve Karnowski, Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Rising Number of Tween Boys Vomiting to Stay Thin

Tom Henderson — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Nutrition: Tweens, Research Reveals: Tweens, Nutrition: Teens, Research Reveals: Teens

16 percent of boys made themselves sick, compared with only 10 percent of girls. Credit: Getty Images

Kids as young as 10 are vomiting to lose weight.

What is their problem? It's like someone told them childhood obesity is a major social problem that makes kids unattractive and threatens to send them to early graves with diabetes and low test scores.

Regardless of its mysterious origin, this obsession with weight apparently has dangerous consequences -- at least in Taiwan. That's where researchers studied children's vomiting habits. They surveyed 16,000 kids and found that roughly 15 percent of kids ages 10 to 15 have vomited to lose weight.

Here's an interesting little factoid: It's more boys than girls. Researchers at National Yang-Ming University found that 16 percent of boys made themselves sick, compared with only 10 percent of girls.

And apparently sitting in front of a computer is enough to make you vomit. Lead researcher Yiing Mei Liou tells CBS kids who use a computer for more than two hours a day are 55 percent more likely to vomit than other kids.

Other risk factors included fried foods, late-night snacks, skipped breakfast and sleeping less than eight hours a day.

"Self-induced vomiting was most prevalent in adolescents who had a sedentary lifestyle, slept less and ate unhealthily," Liou tells the network.

CBS News reports self-induced vomiting isn't just a problem among Taiwanese kids. At least 4 percent of American students reported vomiting or taking laxatives in the last 30 days to lose or stop gaining weight, according to a 2010 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And, vomiting is not good thing, CBS reports. It can lead to health problems including tooth decay, gum problems, dehydration and electrolyte imbalances as well as broken blood vessels in the eyes (from the strain of vomiting) and cuts and calluses on the tops of the fingers (from sticking the fingers into the mouth to elicit the gag reflex).

And the clincher? It can make you fat. That's right, kids. CBS reports researchers say throwing up increases your risk for eating disorders and (Aiiieeee!) obesity.

So remember, first lady Michelle Obama wants you to lose weight. But the name of her program is "Let's Move," not "Let's Puke Our Lunch."

Related:

Does Obesity Plus Diabetes Equal Learning Disability?

Childhood Obesity May Lead to Early Death

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Your Teenager's (Probably) Been Out in the Sun Too Long, Study Shows

Tom Henderson — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens

Survey shows British teens are ignorant about sun safety. Credit: Corbis

"That kid has been out in the sun too long."

You probably thought that about your teenage son or daughter before, but now there is science to back you up.

Researchers found that even teenagers in Great Britain, not generally known for their California tans, stay out in the sun 12 times longer than the recommended limit without using sunscreen.

Britain's Teenage Cancer Trust surveyed kids as part of its annual sun safety campaign, The London Daily Mail reports. The survey reveals that British teens spend up to two hours tanning without protection. But, it is recommended not to go over 15 minutes without sunscreen.

The survey included 600 young people ages 13 to 24 and found that more than a third of them don't wear sunscreen, and 1 in 10 thought fake tans caused cancer. The Daily Mail reports that more than half do not know how to apply sunscreen correctly. (They rub it in completely when it should be patted gently on to the skin, leaving a visible film.)

"It's the sun damage done to skin when young that can lead to skin cancer in later life, which is why these findings are incredibly worrying," Simon Davies, the chief executive of the Teenage Cancer Trust, tells the Daily Mail. "We all love the sun but we have to respect our skin."

Sally Davies, the chief medical officer at the Department of Health, also finds the survey troubling. "It is disappointing that some teenagers are still unaware of the health risks and dangers from the use of sunbeds and excessive exposure to the sun," she tells the Daily Mail.

"Overexposure to UV radiation can cause damage to your skin and increase your risk of getting skin cancer, one of the most common cancers in the UK."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Medicaid Kids are Denied Medical Care, Study Shows

Associated Press — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

Credit: Getty Images

CHICAGO (AP) - Children on public insurance are being denied treatment by doctors at much higher rates than those with private coverage, according to an undercover study that had researchers pose as parents of sick kids seeking an appointment with a specialist.

Snubbed even by specialists whose offices supposedly accept public insurance patients, these kids also had to wait much longer to see a doctor. Low Medicaid reimbursements are the likely reason, the study authors said.

The study was done in Cook County, Ill., the nation's second-most populous county which includes Chicago, but the researchers and others say the results likely reflect practices around the country.

"People should be very concerned," said Dr. Karin Rhodes, the lead author and an emergency medicine specialist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The study results suggest many of the 40 million publicly insured U.S. children are not getting recommended timely treatment for dangerous conditions including asthma, diabetes and depression, she said.

"I work in an emergency room ... where you see the long-term consequences of people who did not get the care they needed," Rhodes said.

The study appears in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.

The study is "simple and elegant" and bolsters previous research while presenting a more accurate real-world picture of disparities facing public aid patients, said Dr. Steve Wegner, former head of the American Academy of Pediatrics' child health financing committee.

To test whether type of insurance influences doctors' willingness to schedule appointments, the researchers posed as parents of fictitious sick children referred to specialists by primary-care doctors or emergency room physicians. Seven scenarios were created, including a 9-month-old with a severe skin rash, a 7-year-old with diabetes, a 12-year-old with a suspected broken arm and a 13-year-old with symptoms of severe depression.

The researchers phoned 273 specialty clinics twice, a month apart, seeking an appointment with doctors including dermatologists, allergists, psychiatrists and bone specialists. In one call, the children were said to have private insurance; in the other, they were insured through Illinois' Medicaid program.

Overall, specialists refused to grant appointments for 66 percent of the Medicaid children, versus only 11 percent of privately insured youngsters.

Among 89 clinics that accepted both insurance types, Medicaid children had to wait an average of 42 days for an appointment, versus 20 days for private coverage.

In about half the calls, clinics asked about insurance before telling callers whether an appointment was available. In other cases, callers volunteered their insurance information - and were often told that Medicaid was the reason the appointment request was denied, the researchers said.

Orthopedic (bone) doctors were among specialists most likely to deny appointments for public kids; psychiatrists were among the least likely. Rhodes said an analysis of the reasons offices gave has not been completed.

In about 20 percent of the denials, callers were told they could seek treatment at the county public hospital or at an emergency room.

Rhodes said information is not available on how many of the doctors involved accept Medicaid patients, but that most specialists are affiliated with hospitals, which generally require them to enroll in Medicaid.

All appointments made were canceled at the end of the call. Many specialists told about the study afterward said they wanted to see any kids "who need to see me" but that they worked within health systems or hospitals that for financial reasons discouraged them from treating too many patients on public aid, Rhodes said.

In Illinois, Medicaid pays doctors about $100 for office visits like those sought in the study, versus an average of $160 from private insurers, the researchers said.

Other factors against Medicaid patients include "delays in payment and hassles of payment procedures," the researchers said.

Wegner, a Medicaid consultant and chairman of Community Care of North Carolina, a managed care group that includes most primary care doctors in his state, said accountable care organizations to be set up starting next year would help address the disparities. The groups were part of President Barack Obama's health care law.

These networks of hospitals, doctors and other health care providers would include organizations focused on the pediatric Medicaid population, he said. The idea is for providers to work together to streamline care, prevent medical errors, and focus on keeping patients healthier and out of the emergency room.

In a study published last month in Pediatrics, the same researchers used similar undercover methods to examine access to emergency dental care for children on Medicaid in Cook County - and found similar disparities.

The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services paid for both studies as part of a 2005 consent decree stemming from a class-action lawsuit alleging Medicaid children in Cook County weren't getting equal access to primary care.

Department spokesman Mike Claffey said both studies "provide data that highlights an issue that has been and continues to be an area of focus" for his agency and Medicaid programs in all states.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. This article was written by Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

New Sticker Price on Raising a Child: $226,920

Tom Henderson — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: Research Reveals: Babies, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens

Credit: Paul J. Richards, AFP/Getty Images

Do you really want to have a baby? Take another look at the sticker price.

You could buy a top-of-the-line Mercedes Benz SLS for the same amount of money -- and have a few bucks left over gas. You could also buy a near-mint condition copy of Superman No. 1. Or how about a two-bedroom, 580-square foot condo in Boston?

But if you still want a baby, go ahead. It's your $226,920.

That's how much the United States Department of Agriculture says having a kid cost these days. Of course, the cost is spread out over 18 years. Sometimes much longer.

USDA officials release figures on how much it costs to raise a child every year as part of a federal program. We think it's just to seriously depress parents.

And wait. It gets more depressing. Bloomberg News reports the price has shot up 2.1 percent in just one year. That includes the price of child care, education, transportation and health services.

The typical two-parent family spent from $11,880 to $13,830 on each child in 2010, according to the USDA -- give or take. A family earning less than $57,600 a year was likely to spend $163,440 in 2010 dollars to rear a child, the USDA reports, while parents earning more than $99,730 may spend $377,040.

"Child-rearing expenses vary considerably by household income level," according to the report. "Annual expenses generally increased with a child's age, a circumstance true in both two-parent and single-parent families."

If the study itself is insufficient depressing, the report includes an online calculator so parents can calculate their own costs and bum themselves out for an entire weekend. Try not to think of that Mercedes.

You'll really start moping if you live in the urban Northeast. Parents raising children in the West and Midwest might be slightly less traumatized. The least expensive places to raise a child, by the way, are the urban South and rural areas.

Housing accounts for the biggest portion of expenses, averaging 31 percent over 17 years, the USDA reports. Child care and education average 17 percent, with food costs at 16 percent. The estimates don't include college expenses.

The USDA has been bumming parents with these numbers every year since 1960. Your parents probably thought they had it rough, too. Tell them to stop their whining.

If you're 50 years old, health care was only 4 percent of the cost of raising a child -- half of what it is now. Education and child care accounted for 2 percent.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Even a Little Lead Exposure Not a Good Thing for Kids' Test Scores

Tom Henderson — Thu, 19 May 2011 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

kids who ingest even small amounts of lead do worse later on in school tests than kids who stick to a strict lead-free diet. Credit: Getty Images

Let this be lesson to you, kids. Stop eating all those lead-based snacks.

The cultural messages are everywhere -- especially in movies about the old West: "Eat lead." But even though the first thing you want to do after a long day of school is grab yourself a nice big bowl of lead, resist the temptation.

That stuff can really lower your test scores.

The Boston Herald reports kids who ingest even small amounts of lead do worse on school tests later on than kids who stick to a strictly lead-free diet.

Lead is a major ingredient in paint residue, dust, Chinese-made toys and other items that end up in the mouths of babes -- especially poor babes.

The Herald reports Duke University researchers found poor children are more likely to have lead in their systems than their more affluent classmates, adding that educators call the Duke study a reminder that even very low levels of lead exposure can hurt children.

"It's compelling evidence," Francesca Provenzano, health program supervisor for the Connecticut Department of Public Health, tells the newspaper. "I think it provides even greater awareness to parents, medical providers and advocates that lead poisoning is a serious issue and prevention is key."

Researchers studied 35,000 Connecticut children exposed to lead before age 7. Then they looked at the kids' scores on the 2008 and 2009 standardized Connecticut Mastery Tests.

The greater the lead exposure, in turns out, the lower the test scores.

Researchers for the Children's Environmental Health Initiative at Duke came to the same conclusion after studying North Carolina students in 2009, the Herald reports.

Lead was banned in house paint, cookware and products marketed to children in the United States in 1978. But it still shows up, particularly in poor homes, and kids (being kids) will suck on toys with lead-based paints.

While adults need to keep lead away from kids, kids need to keep lead away from themselves. So when your teacher says "get the lead out," she means it.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Early Childhood Memories Come and Go

Tom Henderson — Thu, 12 May 2011 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

Early childhood memories come and go until about the time kids hit their 10th birthdays. Credit: Getty Images

Ask your 9-year-old about his earliest memory, and he may talk about that bug he accidentally swallowed when he was 3.

Go up to him a month later and ask if he remembers the time he swallowed the bug, and you may get that look kids get when they suspect their parents are insane.

Don't worry. Neither one of you has lost your marbles.

It's all part of the phenomenon known as infantile amnesia. The Los Angeles Times reports early childhood memories come and go until about the time kids hit their 10th birthdays. What they are left with at that point are snatches of memories of life before kindergarten.

Like most of us, they remember nothing more than bits and pieces. But even those bits and pieces float in and out of minds during the first 10 years.

This fascinates Carole Peterson, a professor of psychology at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada.

"These are the memories we use to develop a sense of identity -- who we are and where we come from," she tells the Los Angeles Times.

Although infantile amnesia has been thoroughly studied in adults, Peterson led a team of researchers to find out how it works in children. That's when they discovered memories are like bubbles wandering through children's consciousness.

The Times reports Peterson and her team interviewed the same children two years apart. They found early childhood memories had solidified by age 10, but tended to come and go when the children were younger.

"By 10, their early memories are crystallized," Peterson tells the Times. "Those are the memories they keep."

But the memories are sporadic. We might remember getting a sliver at age 3, or our first taste of licorice. But that's about it.

Kind of ironic, psychology professor Elaine Reese of the University of Otago in New Zealand, tells the Times.

"You think about the emphasis on 0 to 3 in early education, but as adults we can't remember that period," she tells the newspaper. "It's one of those enigmas of science we'd like to understand."

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

South Korean Autism Study Shows Rates May Be Much Higher Than Thought

Lesley Kennedy — Mon, 09 May 2011 13:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens

2.6 percent of the children had autism -- more than two times the average rate reported in developed nations. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

A six-year study looking at autism rates in a South Korean city could lead to new global estimates of the prevalence of the disorder, The New York Times reports.

Researchers from the Yale Child Study Center, George Washington University and other institutes attempted to screen every 7- to 12-year-ol

d child in the Ilsan community of Goyang, population 488,590, according to the newspaper.

They found 2.6 percent of the children had autism -- more than two times the average rate reported in developed nations, The Times reports.

"From the get-go we had the feeling that we would find a higher prevalence than other studies because we were looking at an understudied population: children in regular schools," lead researcher, Dr. Young-Shin Kim, a child psychiatrist and epidemiologist at the Yale Child Study Center, tells the newspaper.

Experts, however, say the research, set to be published in The American Journal of Psychiatry and largely funded by Autism Speaks, does not add up to a rise in autism cases, but points to a more comprehensive study, according to The Times.

"This is a very impressive study," Lisa Croen, director of the autism research program at Kaiser-Permanente Northern California, who was not involved with the study, tells The Times. "They did a careful job and in a part of the world where autism has not been well documented in the past."

Why South Korea? The Times reports the prevalence of autism had not previously been measured there and the country's national health care system, along with its "homogeneous population" were factors.

Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, chief of developmental disabilities at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities of the C.D.C., tells the newspaper the C.D.C.'s records-based approach likely misses some cases of autism when it comes to the poor, minorities and "potentially among girls."

"We believe this will be a way to get as complete an estimate of A.S.D. (autism spectrum disorder) prevalence as possible," she tells The Times in an e-mail.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

One-Sport Young Athletes Double Risk of Injury, Report Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Tue, 03 May 2011 15:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Tweens

One sport? Double your chance of getting a sports related injury! Credit: Corbis

The days of being a well-rounded athlete are quickly becoming ancient history.

Today's young jocks are increasingly focusing on one sport -- playing it year round -- and, as a result, they're getting hurt more often.

A new study finds one-sport athletes are nearly twice as likely to be injured, compared with their multi-sport playing peers, HealthDay reports.

"We saw a pretty significant difference with this intensity of training, along with specialization," senior study author Dr. Neeru Jayanthi, medical director of primary care sports medicine at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, tells the news service.

Jayanthi and his team had previously looked at 519 junior tennis players and discovered the athletes who played tennis only were more likely to suffer injuries, HealthDay reports.

In the new study, presented May 2 at the annual American Medical Society for Sports Medicine meeting, the researchers examined 154 athletes, with an average age of 13, who played multiple sports and visited a clinic, according to the news service.

Of those 154 kids, 85 sought treatment for a sports-related injury, while the other 69 were simply getting physicals, HealthDay reports, noting that the injured kids played organized sports for 11 hours a week on average, while the kids who were not injured played fewer than 9 hours weekly.

"It's been accepted for the last five years or so that kids who are not super-specific do better. They're cross-trained, so they're conditioned for other movements," Dr. Kory Gill, an assistant professor at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, tells HealthDay.

Gill adds that kids younger than high school-age are particularly at risk of being injured if they play just one sport.

"I tell parents to let kids be kids and play multiple sports," he tells HealthDay. "See what they're good at and what they enjoy."

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Treatments for Autism: What Works, What Doesn't

the editors at iVillage.com — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:30:00 EST

Filed under: Medical Conditions, Research Reveals: Babies, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids, Research Reveals: Tweens, Research Reveals: Teens, Expert Advice: Health

Watch a video on how autism can be treated.

Credit: Getty Images

Moms of kids with autism usually try everything under the sun -- from medications to diets to behavioral therapies -- to help their kids. But there's new guidance in the world of autism treatment: A report in the most recent issue of Pediatrics says that while medications can be a mixed bag, behavioral interventions can help -- a lot.

Researchers at Vanderbilt University reviewed the evidence behind drugs, injections of the hormone secretin, and behavioral therapies. What they found: Antidepressants (such as Prozac) and stimulants (such as Ritalin) don't help autistic children and neither does secretin. And while the anti-psychotic drugs risperidone and aripiprazole decreased kids' hyperactivity and irritability, they also caused serious side effects, such as weight gain and sedation.

On the other hand, children who received intense behavioral intervention -- working one-on-one with a therapist at least 25 hours a week -- made moderate to huge improvements in their IQ, language, and social skills. Since kids on the autism spectrum vary widely in their abilities, there's hardly a one-size-fits-all approach and the report looked at studies of several methods. Experts generally agree, however, that the earlier a child can get therapy, the better.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Do you know a child affected by autism? What therapies have helped? Chime in here!

Permalink | Email this | Comments