I Am Quite Mellow But I Wouldn't Say Everyone Else Is”: How UK Students Compare Their Drinking Behavior to Their Peers'

Background: Excessive drinking is commonplace at UK Universities. Individuals may misperceive how much they drink compared to others and are less likely to think that they will suffer adverse consequences. Young people often distance themselves and their friends from ‘problem drinkers’. Objectives: The aim of the study was to explore how student drinkers compared their own drinking behaviors to the drinking behaviors of others. Methods: An online survey was completed by 416 students aged 18–30 (68.5% female). They were asked ‘how do you think your drinking compares with other people like you?' and ‘how do you think your behavior when you drink compares with other people like you?’ Answers were subjected to thematic analysis. Results: The first main theme was about ‘identification as a ‘good’ drinker’. Participants suggested their own behavior when drinking was similar to their sober behavior. Further, they viewed themselves as more able to maintain a balance between staying in control and having fun while drinking. The second main theme was about ‘distancing from being a ‘bad’ drinker. Participants distanced themselves from negative prototypical drinkers, such compulsive or anti-social drinkers. They also attributed their own drinking behaviors to situational factors, but described other people as intentionally violent or aggressive. Conclusions/Importance: These findings may explain the failure of some health messages to change drinking behaviors. If drinkers perceive that their behavior when they drink is better than other people's then they may discount intervention messages. Targeting these biases could be incorporated into future interventions.     

Application of prioritization approaches to optimize environmental monitoring and testing of pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals are ubiquitous in the natural environment with concentrations expected to rise as human population increases. Environmental risk assessments are available for a small portion of pharmaceuticals in use, raising concerns over the potential risks posed by other drugs that have little or no data. With >1900 active pharmaceutical ingredients in use, it would be a major task to test all of the compounds with little or no data. Desk-based prioritization studies provide a potential solution by identifying those substances that are likely to pose the greatest risk to the environment and which, therefore, need to be considered a priority for further study. The aim of this review was to (1) provide an overview of different prioritization exercises performed for pharmaceuticals in the environment and the results obtained; and (2) propose a new holistic risk-based prioritization framework for drugs in the environment. The suggested models to underpin this framework are discussed in terms of validity and applicability. The availability of data required to run the models was assessed and data gaps identified. The implementation of this framework may harmonize pharmaceutical prioritization efforts and ensure that, in the future, experimental resources are focused on molecules, endpoints, and environmental compartments that are biologically relevant.     

New,Immunomodulatory, Oral Nutrition Formula for Use Prior to Surgery in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: An Exploratory Study

Background: The perioperative use of immunomodulatory nutrition formulas in patients with head and neck cancer reduces the number of postoperative infections and the length of hospital stay. Objective: An exploratory, randomized, controlled, blind, clinical trial was designed to examine the effect of the preoperative consumption of a new, immunomodulatory, oral nutrition formula in patients with head and neck cancer. Methods: Thirty‐eight patients were randomized to receive either 400 mL/d of either the new immunomodulatory formula (IF) or that commonly used in clinical practice (CF) over 10 days prior to surgery. Thirty‐three patients completed the study. Compliance, tolerance, the length of hospital stay, the incidence of infections and noninfectious complications before discharge, and the same up to 15 and 30 days after discharge were recorded. Results: The percentage of patients who developed infections before discharge was significantly lower in the IF than in the CF group (P = .013), as was the number of infections/100 patients/d (P = .035). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the IF group (P = .001). Both formulas were safe and well tolerated. No other differences were detected. These results suggest preoperative consumption of the new formula to be beneficial for patients with neck and head cancer. Further trials are needed to confirm these results and to test the efficacy of the formula in patients with other conditions. Conclusion: The new formula can be safely prescribed as part of the preoperative treatment of patients with head and neck cancer and might reduce the problem of postoperative infection.