It's been a few weeks since we've had to write a blog, and in that time I've been deluged with text messages from our school about various muggings or robberies around campus. I am, as are most students, signed up for the emergency alert text message system. But never have I seen it used so frequently! I'm used to one or two events happening a semester that they alert us about, but there were at least 4-5 in the span of a few weeks. And all seemed to center around the same few blocks.
Stranger was the news this weekend about incidents around our area. Just two blocks from my house a car flipped over and damaged several parked cars (luckily not mine...). I don't know why this particular incident happened, and by the time I heard about it and went to go look the car had been removed. Then last night apparently two armed men stole a car around 50th St. and ended up crashing it at 40th and Locust, on Penn's campus. A shootout with Philadelphia police ensued and one of the men was killed, with the other being taken into custody.
I consider myself lucky over the last four years that I have not been involved in any incidents like these around our area. But I know people who have, and on Saturday night my roommate was walking back to our house from a bar at the time the carjacking/shootout occurred. Thankfully he took a different route home. I'm always torn about what to say to parents of prospective students when they come to admissions events and ask about safety. I think that the area just around campus is relatively safe, but people have to remember that we do live in a large urban environment. Crime happens everyday in the neighborhoods around us, and I think that these events are a good reminder for students to be careful when walking around at night. I won't lecture about all the ways to avoid danger, but the bottom line is to stay in groups and stay on the busier roads (like Spruce St). Both for this holiday season and the rest of your time at school, please be smart when you're off campus and stay safe.
Link to an article (which doesn't really tell much more info because the event was so recent)-
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/11/21/1260855/carjacking-ends-on-penn-campus.html
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Sleep Research
This week, I thought I'd talk about my job at Penn. I work as a research assistant for a group of insomnia researchers. At the moment, there are four different studies that are going on, each of which focuses on a different aspect of insomnia. The first study is almost over, and is the one I have been working on the longest. It involves the stress response and its role in insomnia. The idea is that if people suffering from insomnia are stressed before going to bed, their sleep will get worse and they will have a different salivary cortisol response to the stressor than healthy sleepers. The fun part of the study, for me, is the "stress" night...where I get to use an electric shock machine to administer a mild shock to the wrist of the participants. That is the initial stressor, as well as the knowledge that they could be shocked up to three times during the night. Before shocking them, of course, I show them that the shock is not that bad by administering it to myself.
The other study I am most involved in is a study examining the treatment of insomnia in cancer survivors. The study compares the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) treatment with or without the use of a drug that is intended to reduce daytime fatigue. CBT-I is supposed to help those who suffer from insomnia manage their sleep habits at night in order to increase their sleep time and their sleep efficiency (which is a measure of time asleep vs. time spent in bed). The drug should help with insomnia by reducing daytime fatigue and allowing the person to actually be tired enough at night to fall asleep. So together these treatments should be better than either one alone. The study is double-blind (of course), with those participants not receiving the medication receiving a placebo instead. My role is mainly in recruitment of participants from the cancer clinic at Penn, as well as consenting/screening participants who seem eligible.
The other two studies I am less involved in, but I will detail in a later post.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Halloween Health Hazards
Halloween has always been one of my favorite holidays. But it is also a holiday that seems to be regarded as dangerous, at least compared to others like Christmas or Thanksgiving. As a kid, the dangers all centered around trick-or-treating. My mom lectured my sister and I each year before we went out about staying together, only going to lit houses, not entering strangers houses, etc. Then, when we (miraculously) came home unharmed, her attention switched to my beloved candy. Even when I was in high school she still checked each piece for puncture marks (from poisoned needles?) in the wrapping and any other signs of tampering. Finally, my sister and I had intense negotiations in order to maximize the candies we liked and get rid of anything we didn't before it was all put away and strictly rationed over the next few months (which I always found a way around when my mom wasn't home).
As my friends and I grew older, the dangers of Halloween reversed themselves; instead of being worried about something from the night harming me, my mom became worried that I would go out and harm the neighborhood. Once, during a Halloween party at my house, the police came because we were loud and down the street some other people had been egging houses. To my knowledge, none of the people at my house were involved and the police did believe us...after my mom vouched for us being home all night.
The last few years the dangers associated with Halloween have changed again. This Friday all USP students got an email from the dean warning of the dangers of alcohol assumption, date rape, and walking around at night in the city (presumably at/after a Halloween party). While those concerns are legitimate on any college campus, especially the latter given the number of muggings the last two weeks, it's interesting that Halloween is the only holiday I still get warned about. But as always, I've had a great Halloween weekend and made it home safely at the end...unfortunately with no candy to get me through the rest of the semester.
http://www.suite101.com/content/halloween-health-and-safety-reminders-a296271
As my friends and I grew older, the dangers of Halloween reversed themselves; instead of being worried about something from the night harming me, my mom became worried that I would go out and harm the neighborhood. Once, during a Halloween party at my house, the police came because we were loud and down the street some other people had been egging houses. To my knowledge, none of the people at my house were involved and the police did believe us...after my mom vouched for us being home all night.
The last few years the dangers associated with Halloween have changed again. This Friday all USP students got an email from the dean warning of the dangers of alcohol assumption, date rape, and walking around at night in the city (presumably at/after a Halloween party). While those concerns are legitimate on any college campus, especially the latter given the number of muggings the last two weeks, it's interesting that Halloween is the only holiday I still get warned about. But as always, I've had a great Halloween weekend and made it home safely at the end...unfortunately with no candy to get me through the rest of the semester.
http://www.suite101.com/content/halloween-health-and-safety-reminders-a296271
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Vaccines
Ironically, for another psychology class I am taking I have to design a mini health psychology intervention. Not being able to use backpacks again, the topic I've chosen is vaccines and the fear that some parents have about vaccinating their children. Normally, children receive many vaccinations as they grow up in order to prevent them from contracting diseases that are potentially deadly. And by vaccinating at least 90% of children it helps protect the population as a whole from outbreaks of these diseases by creating herd immunity. However, there is fear, driven primarily by misinformation, that vaccines given to children can result in autism. As a result of this fear parents refuse to have their children vaccinated, leaving them susceptible to many diseases that other children are not.
At least some of this fear originated with the supposed results of a study that showed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. However, many problems about this study were later uncovered. There was a careful selection of participants whose families already believed that the vaccine caused the autism. The principle investigator was also accused of financial conflict of interest because he received funding from lawyers involved in vaccination lawsuits. Six years after the study was published, almost all of the authors published a retraction of its results. Many other studies, some following thousands of children longitudinally over several years, found no link between vaccinations and the development of autism. Despite this overwhelming evidence to the contrary, parents still hang onto their fears and do not vaccinate their children.
When examining the actions of the parents who decide not to vaccinate their children it is important to keep in mind that they believe they are doing what is best for their children. But in developed countries such as ours, many of the diseases that vaccines prevent have not been seen or experienced in years. For instance, most parents raising children today have never seen a case of polio or smallpox, two diseases that were all but wiped out thanks to the use of vaccines.
Despite strongly disagreeing with their decision due to the scientific evidence, I do think that their thoughts and decision fits into the Health Belief Model we discussed in class. Not seeing many of the diseases vaccines protect against means that parents have a low perceived susceptibility to them. And this lack of first-hand experience could also reduced any perceived severity that parents acknowledge. Most importantly, the misinformation about the risk of autism can act as a huge perceived barrier. The risk of inadvertently making their child autistic outweighs any perceived benefits of the vaccine.
The focus of my presentation will be on changing the minds of these doubtful parents so that their children are vaccinated along with the rest of the population, protecting them from a myriad of potentially deadly diseases.
References-
At least some of this fear originated with the supposed results of a study that showed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. However, many problems about this study were later uncovered. There was a careful selection of participants whose families already believed that the vaccine caused the autism. The principle investigator was also accused of financial conflict of interest because he received funding from lawyers involved in vaccination lawsuits. Six years after the study was published, almost all of the authors published a retraction of its results. Many other studies, some following thousands of children longitudinally over several years, found no link between vaccinations and the development of autism. Despite this overwhelming evidence to the contrary, parents still hang onto their fears and do not vaccinate their children.
When examining the actions of the parents who decide not to vaccinate their children it is important to keep in mind that they believe they are doing what is best for their children. But in developed countries such as ours, many of the diseases that vaccines prevent have not been seen or experienced in years. For instance, most parents raising children today have never seen a case of polio or smallpox, two diseases that were all but wiped out thanks to the use of vaccines.
Despite strongly disagreeing with their decision due to the scientific evidence, I do think that their thoughts and decision fits into the Health Belief Model we discussed in class. Not seeing many of the diseases vaccines protect against means that parents have a low perceived susceptibility to them. And this lack of first-hand experience could also reduced any perceived severity that parents acknowledge. Most importantly, the misinformation about the risk of autism can act as a huge perceived barrier. The risk of inadvertently making their child autistic outweighs any perceived benefits of the vaccine.
The focus of my presentation will be on changing the minds of these doubtful parents so that their children are vaccinated along with the rest of the population, protecting them from a myriad of potentially deadly diseases.
References-
Allan MG, Ivers N (2010). The autism-vaccine story: fiction and deception? Canadian Family
Physician, 56,1013.
Aronson E, Wilson TD, Akert RM. (2007). Social Psychology (7th Edition). Saddle River, NJ.
Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Council on Community Pediatrics (2010).
Increasing immunization coverage. Pediatrics, 125, 1295-1304.
Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Coren LS, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy M,
Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, DeStefano F (2010). Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism. Pediatrics, 126, 656-664.
Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. (2004). Washington D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Gupta VB (2010). Communicating with parents of children with autism about vaccines and
complementary and alternative approaches. J Dev Behav Pediatr, 31, 343-345.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Methamphetamine
Don't be scared about the title of this post- I won't regale you of stories of that methamphetamine binge from second year (which I am kidding about anyway). But I have read a few news articles describing a suit that the government is bringing against CVS because its policies allowed people to come in and buy large quantities of over-the-counter decongestants. Apparently these decongestants contained pseudoephedrine, a main ingredient used to make methamphetamine. Because of this, federal law limits how much a person can buy in a day and pharmacies are supposed to check ID's and make customers sign for their pseudoephedrine-containing drugs.
The problem with CVS's system (that apparently was avoided by all other major pharmacies) was a computerized ledger that allowed people to buy more than the federally regulated amount. And employees were told to listen to the computer, even if they were not sure about how much a customer was buying.
What bothers me about this situation is an unsettling trend for us to just listen to computers (not only in healthcare, but in other industries as well) rather than take the time to actually evaluate a situation. A computerized ledger keeping track if ID's that are scanned into a pharmacy computer makes sense; it eliminates a lot of the human error in paper and pencil record keeping. But to just assume that system is right does not. Given the amount of education needed to be a pharmacist (or any other healthcare professional), the decisions made in the industry should be by those people. Especially when it involves materials that can be used to make things like meth or other controlled substances. Or when people's lives are at stake. Computers can be useful to collect data and analyze it, but in the end I think the decisions of what to do should remain in the hands of people.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/10/15/130585355/cvs-pseudoephedrine-meth-smurfs
http://www.newser.com/story/102972/cvs-fined-75m-for-selling-meth-ingredient.html
The problem with CVS's system (that apparently was avoided by all other major pharmacies) was a computerized ledger that allowed people to buy more than the federally regulated amount. And employees were told to listen to the computer, even if they were not sure about how much a customer was buying.
What bothers me about this situation is an unsettling trend for us to just listen to computers (not only in healthcare, but in other industries as well) rather than take the time to actually evaluate a situation. A computerized ledger keeping track if ID's that are scanned into a pharmacy computer makes sense; it eliminates a lot of the human error in paper and pencil record keeping. But to just assume that system is right does not. Given the amount of education needed to be a pharmacist (or any other healthcare professional), the decisions made in the industry should be by those people. Especially when it involves materials that can be used to make things like meth or other controlled substances. Or when people's lives are at stake. Computers can be useful to collect data and analyze it, but in the end I think the decisions of what to do should remain in the hands of people.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/10/15/130585355/cvs-pseudoephedrine-meth-smurfs
http://www.newser.com/story/102972/cvs-fined-75m-for-selling-meth-ingredient.html
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Sports Injuries
I'm not a huge sports fan; I generally don't try to watch every game or know stats of every player of a given sport. But I do follow the Philly teams (mostly Eagles and Phillies) and have a great appreciation for what the athletes do, especially given my own less than average ability at most sports. But one thing that has always bothered me about sports, and not just at the professional level, is the number of injuries that players have.
Today is a great example of that. During the Eagles game, which was unbearable for a number of other, non-injury related reasons, at least three or four players left the field because of injuries. Most notably was Michael Vick's rib injury that took him out of the game. While I know that I would look pretty bad if two 250-pound men wearing pads and body armor tackled me, I've never understood how players who train for months to get themselves into such a high state of physical fitness can be hurt in one moment. And I don't mean things like broken legs, obviously that can happen in an instant, but subtler things like muscle sprains or tears. After all the hours of training in the off-season and in between games, how are their bodies not able to play for 60 minutes (or less) of game time?
With other sports that are less physical than football I am even more surprised. How do you get hurt playing baseball? Most of the game is spent standing around waiting for something to happen or sitting in the dugout. And then the few minutes of excitement and activity involve hitting a ball and running 90ish feet at a time. At speeds that definitely would not qualify players for Olympic sprinting events. Not to minimize what the players are doing, but I've never been able to figure out how players spend weeks recovering from injuries.
The weirdest thing is that plays that I think should cause injuries don't seem to. Carlos Ruiz was hit in the elbow today with a pitch...and just shook it off and walked to first base. He was in pain, but still played. He didn't even sit out an inning to get it looked at. The same thing is true for one of the Braves' outfielders that caught a ball and collided with a fence along the back wall of the stadium. Those kinds of impacts, to me, seem like what would cause health concerns and injuries.
As a non-sports person I'd be interested to hear any explanation from athletes who may have experienced injuries or know someone who has.
Today is a great example of that. During the Eagles game, which was unbearable for a number of other, non-injury related reasons, at least three or four players left the field because of injuries. Most notably was Michael Vick's rib injury that took him out of the game. While I know that I would look pretty bad if two 250-pound men wearing pads and body armor tackled me, I've never understood how players who train for months to get themselves into such a high state of physical fitness can be hurt in one moment. And I don't mean things like broken legs, obviously that can happen in an instant, but subtler things like muscle sprains or tears. After all the hours of training in the off-season and in between games, how are their bodies not able to play for 60 minutes (or less) of game time?
With other sports that are less physical than football I am even more surprised. How do you get hurt playing baseball? Most of the game is spent standing around waiting for something to happen or sitting in the dugout. And then the few minutes of excitement and activity involve hitting a ball and running 90ish feet at a time. At speeds that definitely would not qualify players for Olympic sprinting events. Not to minimize what the players are doing, but I've never been able to figure out how players spend weeks recovering from injuries.
The weirdest thing is that plays that I think should cause injuries don't seem to. Carlos Ruiz was hit in the elbow today with a pitch...and just shook it off and walked to first base. He was in pain, but still played. He didn't even sit out an inning to get it looked at. The same thing is true for one of the Braves' outfielders that caught a ball and collided with a fence along the back wall of the stadium. Those kinds of impacts, to me, seem like what would cause health concerns and injuries.
As a non-sports person I'd be interested to hear any explanation from athletes who may have experienced injuries or know someone who has.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
A Positive Spin on Stress
I figured I could't make it through an entire semester of health psych without touching on stress at least once. But I am not going to take the angle that you might expect. Many people view stress as negative, and long-term chronic stress is indeed harmful to your health. But a small amount of stress, over a short period of time, can have benefits.
I choose stress this week because tomorrow I have my first medical school interview, which (as you can imagine) is very stressful. But I am glad to feel the stress; it forced me to focus this weekend on getting ready for the interview instead of going out or trying to get ahead on other coursework. It is what will let me actually wake up at 6:30 in the morning tomorrow (along with my three alarm clocks) so I can be on time. I know that if I were completely relaxed and not stressing about the interview (or any other part of the med school admissions process) then I would not be working as hard to prepare myself and hopefully impress the admissions people enough to let me in. Keeping in mind, of course, that I am also not allowing myself to be consumed by stress, which would have those negative consequences both physiologically and (probably) how I perform at an interview.
When actually looking into some health benefits of stress, I was surprised that there are positive, measurable physiological effects of stress on the immune system. The number of leukocytes is boosted in mice following a stressor, which could be helpful in fighting infections and other diseases. Other studies in mice have shown a benefit in terms of resistance to cancer and the flu after being exposed to an experimental stressor, some of which lasts for weeks.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/the-surprising-benefits-of-stress-1285344/
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20050328154440_health_news.shtml
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20050328154440_health_news.shtml
And now that I've finished this last bit of work for the weekend, I am going to try to go to bed to get plenty of sleep for tomorrow as well. Hopefully stressing about the interview won't keep me awake too long...
I choose stress this week because tomorrow I have my first medical school interview, which (as you can imagine) is very stressful. But I am glad to feel the stress; it forced me to focus this weekend on getting ready for the interview instead of going out or trying to get ahead on other coursework. It is what will let me actually wake up at 6:30 in the morning tomorrow (along with my three alarm clocks) so I can be on time. I know that if I were completely relaxed and not stressing about the interview (or any other part of the med school admissions process) then I would not be working as hard to prepare myself and hopefully impress the admissions people enough to let me in. Keeping in mind, of course, that I am also not allowing myself to be consumed by stress, which would have those negative consequences both physiologically and (probably) how I perform at an interview.
When actually looking into some health benefits of stress, I was surprised that there are positive, measurable physiological effects of stress on the immune system. The number of leukocytes is boosted in mice following a stressor, which could be helpful in fighting infections and other diseases. Other studies in mice have shown a benefit in terms of resistance to cancer and the flu after being exposed to an experimental stressor, some of which lasts for weeks.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/the-surprising-benefits-of-stress-1285344/
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20050328154440_health_news.shtml
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20050328154440_health_news.shtml
And now that I've finished this last bit of work for the weekend, I am going to try to go to bed to get plenty of sleep for tomorrow as well. Hopefully stressing about the interview won't keep me awake too long...
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Smoking
After all the talk about smoking and using it as an example in class this week, I thought I'd use it as my blog topic. Not so much the actual health problems associated with smoking (because I am sure we are all familiar with them) but the amazing lengths smokers will go to in order to justify or downplay their habit.
First of all, a disclaimer. I have been known, on occasion, to smoke a cigarette. I won't go into the circumstances/social influences at the time, but it has happened. It's definitely not something I'd pick up as a habit, partly because of the health risks and partly just because I think it is disgusting (and thought so even as I was doing it). So I am not just criticizing smoking from a perspective of someone who has absolutely zero experience with it.
I have been lucky enough (or unlucky enough?) to grow up with two great case studies about smoking-related behaviors. One one hand, there is my father, who did smoke for years but who quit sometime when I was in middle school....and then again when I was beginning high school. The second time stuck, and now he is completely disgusted by the smell/sight of cigarettes. In terms of the factors for behavioral change we talked about in class, I think it was mostly personal factors that led him to quit. He did it on his own and to me it seemed like one day he just woke up and decided he was done. I don't think he has ever explained a reason (at least not to me), but maybe have two teenage kids helped; he may not have wanted to be a role model for that kind of behavior.
On the other hand, there is my mother, who smokes about a pack a day. I am not kidding when I say that I go home in the winter and see visible tufts of smoke wafting around my living room. It's especially bad when some of my friends from high school come over (who also smoke) or my sister is home (...who also smokes). I usually end up outnumbered in the corner breathing through a sweatshirt. Her attitude toward smoking reminds me of the "precontemplation" stage (or some distant stage before that one...). For years my sister and tried to get her to quit, before she apparently gave up and joined her.
My mother is smart; she knows the health risks and says all the time that she wishes she had never started smoking. She'll say this while lighting up a cigarette with her morning coffee, and then proceeding to heave and cough in that way only TB patients and chronic smokers can. She accepts that it is an addiction (both physiologically and behaviorally in her case) and just continues doing it. When I was growing up she always told me not to smoke, partially because of her own experiences not being able to quit later. And she still tells my sister to quit...even when loaning her cigarettes.
It's just interesting to me, to talk about theories that try to explain why people change their behavior. Why people decide to quit something like smoking and stay quit. But I always have to go back to my own experiences; listening to my mother have negative opinions of smoking, voice those opinions, and yet continue to smoke (somewhat hypocritically). A lot of the theories talked about attitudes and motivations as beginning the change process...but if there is already dissonance between the attitude and the behavior what else could possibly cause it to change?
First of all, a disclaimer. I have been known, on occasion, to smoke a cigarette. I won't go into the circumstances/social influences at the time, but it has happened. It's definitely not something I'd pick up as a habit, partly because of the health risks and partly just because I think it is disgusting (and thought so even as I was doing it). So I am not just criticizing smoking from a perspective of someone who has absolutely zero experience with it.
I have been lucky enough (or unlucky enough?) to grow up with two great case studies about smoking-related behaviors. One one hand, there is my father, who did smoke for years but who quit sometime when I was in middle school....and then again when I was beginning high school. The second time stuck, and now he is completely disgusted by the smell/sight of cigarettes. In terms of the factors for behavioral change we talked about in class, I think it was mostly personal factors that led him to quit. He did it on his own and to me it seemed like one day he just woke up and decided he was done. I don't think he has ever explained a reason (at least not to me), but maybe have two teenage kids helped; he may not have wanted to be a role model for that kind of behavior.
On the other hand, there is my mother, who smokes about a pack a day. I am not kidding when I say that I go home in the winter and see visible tufts of smoke wafting around my living room. It's especially bad when some of my friends from high school come over (who also smoke) or my sister is home (...who also smokes). I usually end up outnumbered in the corner breathing through a sweatshirt. Her attitude toward smoking reminds me of the "precontemplation" stage (or some distant stage before that one...). For years my sister and tried to get her to quit, before she apparently gave up and joined her.
My mother is smart; she knows the health risks and says all the time that she wishes she had never started smoking. She'll say this while lighting up a cigarette with her morning coffee, and then proceeding to heave and cough in that way only TB patients and chronic smokers can. She accepts that it is an addiction (both physiologically and behaviorally in her case) and just continues doing it. When I was growing up she always told me not to smoke, partially because of her own experiences not being able to quit later. And she still tells my sister to quit...even when loaning her cigarettes.
It's just interesting to me, to talk about theories that try to explain why people change their behavior. Why people decide to quit something like smoking and stay quit. But I always have to go back to my own experiences; listening to my mother have negative opinions of smoking, voice those opinions, and yet continue to smoke (somewhat hypocritically). A lot of the theories talked about attitudes and motivations as beginning the change process...but if there is already dissonance between the attitude and the behavior what else could possibly cause it to change?
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Health Benefits of Pets
I'm pretty sure that each week I am just going to write about something different, and completely random. In keeping with that "theme," my roommates and I bought an 8-week old kitten today. We had been talking about getting a cat for our house after we started caring for a stray cat in the middle of the summer. But then that cat, who still went outside frequently, was stolen by a spinster neighbor and we were left with a litter box and tons of other cat supplies. So after talking about it for the last few weeks, we finally went online and found a way to get a cat (from someone who did not want to come look at our house first...because I live with five other guys and it is never really in a state to receive visitors). Surprisingly, it was relatively easy to find and now we have a cute female kitten whose name is still to-be-determined.
Even though it didn't factor into our reasoning to buy a cat at all, I was sure that there had to be some research on the health benefits of owning pets. I was surprised at the scope of different benefits that have been found. First of all, most people (including my two unfortunate roommates) think of pets as causing allergies, and try and avoid them or at least their hair. But research has shown that children growing up with pets are less likely to have allergies and tend to have stronger immune systems than those who do not grow up with a pet at home. I guess it is similar to the idea that children should be exposed to other children, so that they can exchange germs and build their immune systems as well.
A lot of research points out health benefits in the elderly. Pets are often described as companions, which can have a calming effect as well as provide a routine for physical exercise (i.e. walking a dog). Lower heart rates and blood pressure have also been associated with pet owners, as well as longer survival after a heart attack.
While I hope that my roommates and I won't have any of these problems any time soon, pets also can help reduce stress (which we will be experiencing plenty of in the next few months). So maybe taking some time to play with our kitten will make finals week a little more fun. Finally, one last "health" benefit (that might be relevant for my roommates and I) involves using pets to get dates. Apparently pets are often conversation starters, and help overcome shyness or awkwardness in social situations. I'm not sure how much I believe this last one, but I guess I'll have to see how it works...either way I'm glad we finally got a kitten and look forward to having it around.
Even though it didn't factor into our reasoning to buy a cat at all, I was sure that there had to be some research on the health benefits of owning pets. I was surprised at the scope of different benefits that have been found. First of all, most people (including my two unfortunate roommates) think of pets as causing allergies, and try and avoid them or at least their hair. But research has shown that children growing up with pets are less likely to have allergies and tend to have stronger immune systems than those who do not grow up with a pet at home. I guess it is similar to the idea that children should be exposed to other children, so that they can exchange germs and build their immune systems as well.
A lot of research points out health benefits in the elderly. Pets are often described as companions, which can have a calming effect as well as provide a routine for physical exercise (i.e. walking a dog). Lower heart rates and blood pressure have also been associated with pet owners, as well as longer survival after a heart attack.
While I hope that my roommates and I won't have any of these problems any time soon, pets also can help reduce stress (which we will be experiencing plenty of in the next few months). So maybe taking some time to play with our kitten will make finals week a little more fun. Finally, one last "health" benefit (that might be relevant for my roommates and I) involves using pets to get dates. Apparently pets are often conversation starters, and help overcome shyness or awkwardness in social situations. I'm not sure how much I believe this last one, but I guess I'll have to see how it works...either way I'm glad we finally got a kitten and look forward to having it around.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Health and Healthcare
I've never had a blog before, or anything similar to this, so I was not sure what topic I wanted to start the semester off with. But the suggested topic "What do I want from healthcare?" does have some personal meaning to me and can serve as a pretty good intro into who I am.
I have always had a slightly different view of healthcare from anyone else I know. I was born with a congenital birth defect, tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF). Basically, the upper end of my esophagus ended in a blind pouch, while the lower end connected the top of my stomach to my trachea. After two and a half years of surgeries, over a year of which I spent living in the hospital, my pediatric surgeons fixed the TEF by removing a part of my large intestine and using it to connecting the top of my stomach and the back of my throat. Because of how the surgery was done, and the fact that intestinal tissue can be destroyed by exposure to stomach acid, I have taken prescription antacids my entire life (and will have to continue doing so).
My personal definition of health has thus always been skewed; I do not get sick a lot, I have never broken a bone, and I have no other problems with my health. But am I really "healthy" when I need medication every day just to make it possible to eat and drink normally? I know that if I stopped taking antacids the stomach acid would eat away at my de-facto esophagus and I would have to be placed back on a feeding tube. (What time frame this would occur over I am not sure- I have never wanted to test the idea!)
One problem I have experienced in dealing with our healthcare system is getting insurance to cover the antacid medication I need. Many times growing up I watched my mom argue with insurance companies who did not understand why a young child needed "heartburn medicine," despite the fact that all my paperwork explained my unusual situation. After I turned 18 I began taking them on myself, and once again have been frustrated. Every six months or so I need to re-justify both why I need the medication and why my part-time income is insufficient to pay for it myself.
The worst time was when I changed insurance companies. My doctor currently prescribes Nexium, which is rather expensive. So the insurance company wanted documented information about me trying other, less expensive medications and some kind of proof that they did not work. To me, it just seemed insane and ignorant. First of all, my doctor explained the various mechanisms of action of a few different drugs and decided what was best. Why does some phone bank worker at an insurance company have the authority to question or overrule that when they cannot even pronounce the name of the medical condition I have? And second of all, the medication "not working" for me could result have huge negative consequences...all to save them a couple bucks. Forgive me if I'd rather be safe than sorry, and still be able to swallow my dinner.
I am sorry that kind of turned into a rant, but what I want most from healthcare is for it to take care of people's health without always first checking the dollar signs attached to it.
I have always had a slightly different view of healthcare from anyone else I know. I was born with a congenital birth defect, tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF). Basically, the upper end of my esophagus ended in a blind pouch, while the lower end connected the top of my stomach to my trachea. After two and a half years of surgeries, over a year of which I spent living in the hospital, my pediatric surgeons fixed the TEF by removing a part of my large intestine and using it to connecting the top of my stomach and the back of my throat. Because of how the surgery was done, and the fact that intestinal tissue can be destroyed by exposure to stomach acid, I have taken prescription antacids my entire life (and will have to continue doing so).
My personal definition of health has thus always been skewed; I do not get sick a lot, I have never broken a bone, and I have no other problems with my health. But am I really "healthy" when I need medication every day just to make it possible to eat and drink normally? I know that if I stopped taking antacids the stomach acid would eat away at my de-facto esophagus and I would have to be placed back on a feeding tube. (What time frame this would occur over I am not sure- I have never wanted to test the idea!)
One problem I have experienced in dealing with our healthcare system is getting insurance to cover the antacid medication I need. Many times growing up I watched my mom argue with insurance companies who did not understand why a young child needed "heartburn medicine," despite the fact that all my paperwork explained my unusual situation. After I turned 18 I began taking them on myself, and once again have been frustrated. Every six months or so I need to re-justify both why I need the medication and why my part-time income is insufficient to pay for it myself.
The worst time was when I changed insurance companies. My doctor currently prescribes Nexium, which is rather expensive. So the insurance company wanted documented information about me trying other, less expensive medications and some kind of proof that they did not work. To me, it just seemed insane and ignorant. First of all, my doctor explained the various mechanisms of action of a few different drugs and decided what was best. Why does some phone bank worker at an insurance company have the authority to question or overrule that when they cannot even pronounce the name of the medical condition I have? And second of all, the medication "not working" for me could result have huge negative consequences...all to save them a couple bucks. Forgive me if I'd rather be safe than sorry, and still be able to swallow my dinner.
I am sorry that kind of turned into a rant, but what I want most from healthcare is for it to take care of people's health without always first checking the dollar signs attached to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)