Behavior abnormalities and poor school performance due to oral theophylline use

Studies evaluating adverse effects of oral theophylline on learning and behavior have been performed on children with asthma receiving long-term theophylline therapy. To further differentiate the effects of asthma itself from the drugs used, we evaluated 20 asthmatic children (6 to 12 years of age) who had not received oral bronchodilators for at least 6 months. A double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel format was used with a 4-week theophylline or placebo period preceded by a 2-week baseline. Theophylline serum levels were maintained between 10 to 20 micrograms/mL. During baseline and treatment periods, the child's home and school behavior/performance were monitored independently by their parents and teachers using standardized report forms. A battery of psychologic tests was administered at the end of baseline and treatment periods. Seven children receiving theophylline were noted to have a change in school behavior and/or performance during their 4 weeks on drug compared to baseline, whereas none of the children receiving placebo were noted to be different (P = .004). Thus, the short-term administration of theophylline to asymptomatic asthmatic children not receiving oral bronchodilators can adversely affect school performance and behavior. Because this population represents the majority of asthmatic children, one needs to use theophylline cautiously in this age group, monitor school performance closely, or seek other treatment modalities.     

Autism: Intervention and Parental Empowerment

Autistic Spectrum Disorder is a pervasive developmental disorder that starts in early childhood and affects about one in every 100 children in the UK. Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) has shown to be the most effective long-term treatment for these children. In this paper a parental programme evaluation of home-based ABA programmes is reported. Results show overwhelming support for ABA. Parents report feeling empowered by the training they receive and give evidence of positive treatment impact on the child and the family as a whole. Results are discussed in the context of evidence-based practice and policy implications.     

The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician–Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician–patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care.

DESIGN

This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study.

INTERVENTION

Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment.

MAIN MEASURES

Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test.

KEY RESULTS

The physician–patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician–patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed.KEY WORDS: colorectal cancer screening, health literacy, randomized trial, physician communication of preventive care