The burden of obesity among a national probability sample of veterans

BACKGROUND: Few national data exist about the prevalence of obesity and the resulting health burden among veterans. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2003 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n = 242,362) to compare rates of obesity among veterans who do and do not utilize the VA, compared with nonveterans. We used bivariate analyses to describe the association of obesity with lifestyle factors, disability, and comorbid disease, and multivariate analysis to assess the independent association of obesity with VA care. RESULTS: Veterans who use the VA for health care have the highest rates of obesity compared with veterans who do not use the VA and nonveterans (27.7% vs 23.9% vs 22.8%, P < .001). Only 27.8% of veterans who receive health care at the VA are of normal weight (vs 42.6% of the general population, P < .001), 44.5% are overweight, 19.9% have class I obesity, 6% have class II obesity, and 1.8% are morbidly obese (an estimated 82,950 individuals). Obese veterans who utilize the VA for services have higher rates of hypertension (65.8%) and diabetes (31.3%), are less likely to follow diet and exercise guidelines, and more likely to report poor health and disability than their normal-weight counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans who receive care at the VA have higher rates of overweight and obesity than the general population. At present, less than half of VA medical centers have weight management programs. As the largest integrated U.S. health system, the VA has a unique opportunity to respond to the epidemic of obesity.     

Studies of Physician‐Patient Communication with Older Patients: How Often is Hearing Loss Considered? A Systematic Literature Review

Hearing loss is remarkably prevalent in the geriatric population: one‐quarter of adults aged 60–69 and 80% of adults aged 80 years and older have bilateral disabling loss. Only about one in five adults with hearing loss wears a hearing aid, leaving many vulnerable to poor communication with healthcare providers. We quantified the extent to which hearing loss is mentioned in studies of physician‐patient communication with older patients, and the degree to which hearing loss is incorporated into analyses and findings. We conducted a structured literature search within PubMed for original studies of physician‐patient communication with older patients that were published since 2000, using the natural language phrase “older patient physician communication.” We identified 409 papers in the initial search, and included 67 in this systematic review. Of the 67 papers, only 16 studies (23.9%) included any mention of hearing loss. In six of the 16 studies, hearing loss was mentioned only; in four studies, hearing loss was used as an exclusion criterion; and in two studies, the extent of hearing loss was measured and reported for the sample, with no further analysis. Three studies examined or reported on an association between hearing loss and the quality of physician‐patient communication. One study included an intervention to temporarily mitigate hearing loss to improve communication. Less than one‐quarter of studies of physician‐elderly patient communication even mention that hearing loss may affect communication. Methodologically, this means that many studies may have omitted an important potential confounder. Perhaps more importantly, research in this field has largely overlooked a highly prevalent, important, and remediable influence on the quality of communication.     

Low‐Dose Intravenous Soybean Oil Emulsion for Prevention of Cholestasis in Preterm Neonates

Background: Premature infants depend on intravenous fat emulsions to supply essential fatty acids and calories. The dose of soybean‐based intravenous fat emulsions (S‐IFE) has been associated with parenteral nutrition (PN)–associated liver disease. This study's purpose was to determine if low‐dose S‐IFE is a safe and effective preventive strategy for cholestasis in preterm neonates. Materials and Methods: This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial in infants with a gestational age (GA) ≤29 weeks. Patients <48 hours of life were randomized to receive a low (1 g/kg/d) or control dose (approximately 3 g/kg/d) of S‐IFE. The primary outcome was cholestasis, defined as a direct bilirubin ≥15% of the total bilirubin at 28 days of life (DOL) or full enteral feeds, whichever was later, after 14 days of PN. Secondary outcomes included growth, length of hospital stay, death, and major neonatal morbidities. Results: In total, 136 neonates (67 and 69 in the low and control groups, respectively) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were similar for the 2 groups. When the low group was compared with the control group, there was no difference in the primary outcome (69% vs 63%; 95% confidence interval, ?0.1 to 0.22; P = .45). While the low group received less S‐IFE and total calories over time compared with the control group (P < .001 and P = .03, respectively), weight, length, and head circumference at 28 DOL, discharge, and over time were not different (P > .2 for all). Conclusion: Compared with the control dose, low‐dose S‐IFE was not associated with a reduction in cholestasis or growth.