Menstrual cycles may affect women shops templates

Tuesday, 31 July, HealthDay News)--the hormonal fluctuations associated with the menstrual cycle of women can color their shopping habits, research shows.

"Our goal was to explore how women's menstrual cycle affect consumption desire, use of the product, and dollars spent in the food and upgrading domains," study first author Saad Gad, Professor of marketing, John Molson School of business, said in a press release from the University of Concordia in Montreal.

In the study, researchers selected 59 women and asked them to keep detailed diaries for their beauty routine, choice of service, your calorie intake and all that they bought for 35 days.

The researchers also analyzed daily reviews women responded to these topics that were interested in their choice of clothes and how long they spent grooming. Participants were also asked about the activities of both sunbathing and high-calorie foods. The study revealed a pattern of behaviour of women.

During the fertile women menstrual cycles (approximately eight hours in 15 of the 28-day cycle), the researchers found a significant increase in attention to appearance. During their fertile days women are also more likely to buy clothes, the study found.

The authors of the study suggested that the explanation for this pattern of behavior can be traced to women evolutionary roots.

"Ancestral times, women have had to focus on activities related to mating more time the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle when the probability of conception was high," Saad explained in a press release. "The same psychological and physiological mechanisms now lead women to greater consumption of products relevant to reproductive drives on the fertile phase of their cycle.

Although food intake among women fell during their fertile days, research has revealed their appetites peak in sterile or luteal phase of the menstrual cycle (day 16-28 28-day cycle). The researchers noted women cravings for high calorie foods spiked at this time, as well as their food purchases.

"Women consume more calories during the luteal phase, because they developed psychological and physiological mechanisms that favored not mating-related activities as food foraging during the fertile phase of their cycle," said Saad. Miscellaneous Darwin pulls, such as pairing against food take precedence depending on menstrual status of women. "

The authors of the study said their findings may shed light on these behaviors and help women to take more informed decisions that can affect their spending and eating habits.

"These behaviors without conscious awareness of consumption, women on how hormonal fluctuations affect their choices as consumers," said Saad. "Our study helps identify where women are most vulnerable to cyclical temptations for high-calorie foods and enhance the appearance of the product. These results may help women make the choice for himself, contrary to the old canard of biological determinism.

Consumption-related smartphone app can help women track their daily purchases, their vulnerability to certain high risk days in their cycle, the authors of the study suggested.

The study was recently published in the journal of consumer psychology.

Dallas — Mary Elizabeth Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. Source: Concordia University, press release, July 2012

View the original article here

Urinary Incontinence Underreported in Young Women

AppId is over the quota

?????????? ???? ????? ?????????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????????

?? ???? ?????
WebMD ???????? ???????

?????????? ????? ????, MD

16 ???? 2012--???????? ????????? ????????, ?????????? ???? ???????? ????????? ???????? ???????? ? ??????? ??????, ???????? ???, ??? ???? ???????. ?? ????????????, ??????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?? ????????.

????????????? ????????????? ???????, ??? ?? ???????????? ???????? ??????, ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ???? ? ???? ???????? ?????????. ??? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ? ???????? 16-30 ? ??????????????? ???????? ? ?? ??????????? ??????. ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ? ?????????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???????????? ??? ??????, ???????????????? ????????????, ?????????? ?????????? ? ????????. ??? ? ???????? ????? ? ????????????? ??????????? ? ???? ????? 1000 ??????, ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? 22.

?????????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????????, ??? ??? ???????? ?????????? ????.

? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???????????? ????????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ? ????????, ?????? ????? ????, ?????????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ?????. ??? ???????, ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ? ???, ??? ??????? ? ?? ???????????? ???? ???????????? ???????, ????????? ????????? ?, ?? ??????? ?????, ?? ??????????? ???? ????.

??? ??? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ?? ??????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ??????????.

?????????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ???????????????? ????????????. ? ?????????? ????????????? «??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ? ??????????? ? ???????????? ?? UI (?????????? ????), ??? ??????? ???????,» ?????? ??????.

????????????? ?????? ?????, ???????? ????, ???????????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ? ?????? ???????????? ????? ???????? ? ???????? ??????? ? ?????????, ???????, ??? ??? ? ?? ??????? ??????????, ??? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????????????? ? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????????.

«???? ???????????? ??????????, ??? ??? ???? ????,» ????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????. ??????? ?? ????, ??????, ??????? ???. «????????. ????????. ??? ??????»

????????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ? ???????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?????, ?? ?????? ??????????????.

???? ?????? ???????????? ??????????, ??? ?????????? ???? ????? ? ??????, ??????????? ???????? urogynecologist Gunhilde ????????? MD ???????, «? ??? ??????? ???????????? ?????????????.»

???????????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????????, ??????? ?????????.

«?? ? ????????? ??????, ????????? ????????????? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????????? ????, ?? ???????????? ??????, ???????? ??,» ??????? ?????????, ??????? ???????, ??? ??????? ????????, ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????. «?? ??? ???? ????? ? (?????????????? ?????????? ????). ????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????.»

????? ????????????? ?????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??????????????? ?????? ? ????????? ? ????????????? ?????????? ????, ????? ? ?????? ????????????? ??????.

????????? ???????, ??? ??? ?????? ????????? ? ???????? 14 ? 15, ??????? ????? ???? ? ??????????? ????, ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????, ??? ?????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???????. ?? ????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ? ?????????? ??? ?????????, ??????? ?????????. «??? ?????? ?????? ???????.»

????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????????? ? ??????????? ? ????????? ?? ???? ? ???????? 50 ??? 60, ??????? ???. ??? ?? ???????? ? ???????? ?????????, ??????? ?????? ?????, ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??????????????? ??????????, ??? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ??????????.

????? ???????????? ??????????? ? ?????? ?????????? ????????.

?????????: ?????? ?????, PhD, ???????????? ???????? ????????, ??????????? ????? ??????????? ????????, ??????? ????????, ????????. Gunhilde ?????????, MD, ??????????? ????????.

© 2012 WebMD, LLC. ??? ????? ????????.

View the original article here

Women with HIV may not have a high risk of cervical cancer: study

Monday, 23 July, HealthDay News)--Infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS--did not appear to increase the risk of cervical cancer, a new survey showed.

The researchers looked at more than 400 HIV infected women and nearly 300 HIV-free women, all of whom had normal Pap test and a negative result for tumors cause of human papillomavirus DNA in the beginning of the study. Know that some types of the human papilloma virus (HPV) causes cervical cancer.

After five years of follow-up, the risk of precancerous cervical diseases was similarly low for both groups of women. None of the women developed cancer of the cervix, Dr. Howard Strickler and colleagues at Albert Einstein College of medicine at Yeshiva University in New York said in a press release.

The study was scheduled to present a briefing Sunday at the International AIDS Conference in Washington, the District of Colombia and appears in the July 25 issue of the journal of the American Medical Association.

The results show that the five-year risk of cervical cancer in HIV-infected women who have normal Pap smear and HPV tumour without causing a risk similar to HIV-free women, researchers say.

"Current investigation underscores the potential for a new era of molecular testing--including HPV, as well as other biomarkers--to improve cervical cancer screening in HIV-infected women," in conclusion, the authors of the study.

--Robert Preidt Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, press release, July 22, 2012

View the original article here

20% of U.S. Women Uninsured in 2010, Up From 15% in 2000: Report

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, July 13 (HealthDay News) -- Twenty percent of American women had no health insurance in 2010, up from 15 percent in 2000, a new report reveals.

In addition to the nearly 19 million uninsured women, another 17 million women were underinsured in 2010, according to the report, released Friday by the Commonwealth Fund. The fund is a private foundation that seeks to promote improved health care, especially for low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, children and the elderly.

The report also compared insurance coverage for U.S. women to women in 10 other industrialized countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, all of which have universal health coverage.

While uninsured women in the United States were likely to have problems paying medical bills and getting health care, many insured American women also face these problems, compared with women in other countries, the study found.

Other highlights of the report include:

U.S. women had problems paying medical bills at double the rate of women in any other country studied. In the United States, 26 percent of women had medical bill problems, compared with 13 percent in Australia, 12 percent in France, and 4 percent in Germany. 39 percent of American women spent $1,000 or more in out-of-pocket medical costs during 2009-2010, compared with 24 percent of women in Switzerland, 1 percent in Sweden, and 0 percent in the United Kingdom. 43 percent of U.S. women went without recommended care, didn't see a doctor when they were sick, or didn't fill prescriptions because of cost, compared with 28 percent in Germany and Australia, 8 percent in the Netherlands, and 7 percent in the United Kingdom. Only 52 percent of American women were sure they could afford health care if they became seriously ill, compared with 91 percent of women in the United Kingdom, 77 percent in the Netherlands and 76 percent in Switzerland.

For uninsured women the problems were worse, according to the report, titled "Oceans Apart: The Higher Health Costs of Women in the U.S. Compared to Other Nations, and How Reform Is Helping."

51 percent of uninsured U.S. women had a problem paying medical bills. 77 percent went without needed health care due to costs, more than double the rates of women in other countries.

The report also found insurance differences in the United States among states.

For example, 30 percent of women in Texas were uninsured, compared with 5 percent in Massachusetts, which has a universal health insurance law similar to the Affordable Care Act, the controversial health-reform legislation signed into law in 2010 by President Barack Obama.

Many of these problems will be solved when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented, the study authors said.

"With the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the nation is moving forward on ensuring access to high-quality care for all Americans," Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said during a Thursday news conference.

Once the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014, the rate of uninsured women will drop from 20 percent to 8 percent, the study authors contended.

Under the Act, women can already get preventive care with no co-pay or deductible for services such as screenings for cervical, breast and colon cancer, cholesterol checks, and osteoporosis and chlamydia screenings. And insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of a preexisting condition, the study authors added.

The law will also prevent insurance companies from charging women higher premiums because of their gender or health.

Dr. Bradley Flansbaum, director of Hospitalist Services at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said "the Affordable Care Act fills in the gaps for women's services."

There are disparities in women's health care in coverage and premium costs, he noted.

"It's almost considered that having an extra X chromosome is considered a disability," Flansbaum said. "The Affordable Care Act levels the playing field."

Because not all states are going to increase Medicaid benefits as outlined in the law, there will still be gaps in coverage for women on Medicaid in some states, he added.

The new report is not without critics.

They include Greg Scandlen, director of the Health Benefits Group Inc., which offers health insurance and life insurance to individuals and groups. "This report is a wonderful example of how you can prove anything if you cherry-pick the data carefully enough," he said.

Women aren't disadvantaged when it comes to health insurance, Scandlen said, adding, "In fact, women are far more likely to be covered than are men at nearly every age."

There are sex-based differences in all insurance markets, Scandlen said. "Women pay more for health insurance than men because they consume far more services than men. In the life and auto insurance markets, women pay far less than men because they drive safer and live longer," he said.

By looking at health care in other countries, Scandlen said, the report didn't take into account long wait times for care and the rationing of care in other nations.

"The Affordable Care Act may very well remove price obstacles to care, although that remains to be seen," he said. "But if it floods the system with new patients without increasing the supply of providers, it may result in less actual care for everyone."

Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Bradley Flansbaum, D.O., M.P.H., director, Hospitalist Services, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City; Greg Scandlen, director, Health Benefits Group; July 12, 2012, press conference with: Karen Davis, president, The Commonwealth Fund; July 13, 2012, report, Oceans Apart: The Higher Health Costs of Women in the U.S. Compared to Other Nations, and How Reform Is Helping

View the original article here

Why women Outlive men: Fruit Flies provide clues

THURSDAY, Aug. 2 HealthDay News)--New research shows that mutations to the DNA of mitochondria to cause men to age faster than women--a statement that may explain why women, on average, outlive men.

Researchers from Monash University in Australia examined male and female fruit flies, which transported mitochondria--the part of the cell that converts food into energy--the origin of the variety. It appeared that genetic variants in mitochondria predicted life expectancy in males, but not in the case of females. Researchers found that several of the mutations in the mitochondria DNA affects how quickly men aged and their durability.

"Intriguingly, these same mutations do not affect the patterns of aging in females. They affect only males, "Dr. Damian Dowling, of the school of biological sciences, Monash University, said in a news release. "All animals have the mitochondria, and tendency to outlive males to females is common to many different species. Our results therefore suggest that mutations mitochondrialnego, which we have no cover will generally faster aging of the male sex in the Animal Kingdom. "

Mutations result from the way in which mitochondrial genes are passed down from one generation to the next, noted the authors of the study.

"When the children receive copies of most of their genes both their mothers and fathers, only receive the mitochondrial gene from their mothers. This means that the quality control process in evolution, known as natural selection, only the screen quality of mitochondrial genes in the dams, "explained Dowling. "If the mitochondrial mutation occurs injures fathers, but does not affect mothers, the mutation will be using through the gaze of natural selection, without return. Over thousands of generations, many such mutations have accumulated that harm only to males, females, leaving unscathed. "

The authors of the study said that they intend to continue their research and study ways to reverse the genetic mutation, which negatively affect women's life.

Research has been published in current biology, Aug. 2.

--Mary Elizabeth Dallas Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. Source: Monash University, news release, Aug. 2, 2012

View the original article here

The news of alcohol-osteoporosis: only 40 women ... just a surrogate marker

In a race to the incomplete news coverage, news about a study published in the journal menopause, "the moderate alcohol consumption reduces the biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women," can overcome the news earlier in the week from a BMJ paper on alcohol and arthritis – both in volume and in the absence of key restrictions.

This was a small study of short term in just 40 women.  Still look as final are the statements in this sampling of headlines:

Nightly glass of wine may protect bones female Boomer

Cocktails can prevent bone loss

Ladies drink for health (bone)

DRINK UP FOR STRONG BONES

Bottoms up, ladies! Moderate drinking can be good for your bones

Drink increases bone health: study

Good news for drinkers! A glass of wine per day ' protects women against the fragile ...

Let's drink to that! Two glasses of wine per day ends the misery of menopause

"Although there is substantial evidence that moderate alcohol consumption correlates with higher density of bone mass in postmenopausal women, is far less clear whether drinking alcohol decreases the rate of fracture," the authors write. "So even if drinking had no detrimental effect, it would be imprudent to recommend drinking with the purpose of preventing fractures."

Previously the story took care to explain:

Researchers followed certain blood markers of bone health throughout and thought these markers of bone density positively correlated with alcohol consumption: in other words, the more the Women drank within moderate range, seemed the best of your bone health.

I added the emphasis in red to stress that – in other words – this study looked at only a surrogate marker.  Should women worry with a marker of blood?  Or should they care about real results as fractures? This study did not show anything about the latter.  That doesn't make it unimportant.  Research is intriguing.  But the news coverage generally do not point this important limitation. Exaggerated stories and exaggerated.

Maybe the journalists were seduced by the comments of researchers: "the results presented here have a clear message to public health, as well as for practicing clinicians Advisory and management of patients at risk of osteoporosis."  It seems a little on the top, given the limitations that we have highlighted.

Journalists and consumers must read our little primer, "surrogate markers may not tell the whole story."  Journalists need to ask themselves: what was the result that is being studied?  What was the endpoint? How many people? For how long?  What to say and what we say about the importance of this?

(Photo credit: Thoursie on stock.xchng)

 

The Violence Against Women Act Must Protect All Victims

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

May 14 2012

By Laura Vazquez, Legislative Analyst, Immigration Policy Project

The NCLR Affiliate Network includes organizations that provide critical services to victims of domestic violence and abuse. When the House Judiciary Committee debated H.R. 4970, the “Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012” (VAWA), I was thinking of them. I was thinking of the survivors of domestic violence who have come through their doors. It is these clients that Congress has sought to protect in its history of reauthorizing VAWA. However, H.R. 4970 eradicates protections desperately needed for immigrant survivors of domestic violence. The Latin American Community Center’s Domestic Violence Program, an NCLR Affiliate in Delaware, said, “we witness firsthand how immigrant victims are already at a disadvantage when getting victim protections.” It is because of these stories and because of the fact that far too many immigrants are victims of domestic violence that NCLR strongly opposes H.R. 4970.

In 1994, VAWA was enacted to protect victims of domestic violence. Recognizing that abusers often exploit a victim’s immigration status, Congress created tools to assist survivors in coming forward to report the crime and assist law enforcement in prosecuting the abusers. Community-based organizations, including some NCLR Affiliates, have taken these tools not only to protect immigrant women, but to assist in the prosecutions of the abusers. According to the Department of Justice, since the passage of VAWA, incidences of domestic violence have decreased by more than 50%.

H.R. 4970 seeks to take those tools away, putting victims at risk and giving power to perpetrators of domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, and human trafficking. H.R. 4970 would effectively prevent immigrant victims from applying for protection from their abusers. It radically changes the current application process for immigrant women and puts steep new hurdles to eligibility in the path of immigrant survivors seeking protection under VAWA. We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4970 because it denies victims protection and deters victims of crime from cooperating with law enforcement. We hope that Congress can return to the long-standing intent of VAWA and pass a bill that protects all victims of domestic violence.

Issues:
Geography:California, Far West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Texas

View the original article here

Analysis of two Annals papers on benefits of mammography in younger women

Results of two studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine point to benefits of biennial mammography screening starting age 40 for women at increased risk.

One evaluated data from 66 published articles and from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  The authors’ conclusion:

The second study tried to assess “tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40.”  The lead author concluded:

“The evidence suggests that for women at twice the average risk for breast cancer, biennial screening beginning at age 40 has more benefits than harms,” said study lead author Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn, MSc, of the Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. “These results provide important information toward developing more individualized, risk-based screening guidelines.”

Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, wrote an accompanying editorial.  Excerpts:

“I worry that the public perceives mammography as a better technology than it actually is. Mammography screening is often promoted for its benefit. Unfortunately, many do not appreciate its limitations. Truth be told, it cannot avert all or even most breast cancer deaths. There are also tradeoffs. Mammography, like every screening test, has a potential for harm, and one must carefully weigh the harm–benefit ratio for a specific woman or a specific population of women (such as those aged 40 to 49 years) before advising use of the test. The harms associated with mammographic screening include false-positive results, false-positive biopsy results, radiation exposure, false-negative results and false reassurance, pain related to the procedure, overdiagnosis (that is, diagnosis of tumors that are of no threat), and overtreatment. False-positive results are the most common and easily quantifiable harm. On the basis of statistics specific to U.S. practice patterns, about half of women getting an annual mammogram for 10 years starting at age 40 years will have at least 1 false-positive result that requires additional testing. More than 5% will get a biopsy during that time.

…These studies also demonstrate that questions about annual versus biennial screening are legitimate but unsettled. The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network consistently shows that annual screening of women in their 40s marginally increases the number of lives saved while substantially increasing harms. This means that patients and their physicians need to make value judgments regarding the harms and benefits.
In the future, more emphasis will be placed on riskbased screening guidelines tailored to the individual. There may be recommendations that some women at very high risk get annual testing, some at intermediate risk get biennial testing, and some at normal risk start screening at a later age. This will be challenging because many health care providers and members of the lay community do not understand screening and the concept of risk. Specific tools designed to educate them need to be developed and rigorously assessed. Ultimately, the preferences of individual women, recognizing the potential for harm and benefit, should be respected.”

For more perspective, I asked Russell Harris, MD, MPH of the University of North Carolina, to analyze the new studies.  He wrote:

“These are well-conducted studies that try to move us toward more efficient screening for breast cancer.  Certainly we are all in favor of that.  At present, our screening is based on the fact that the risk of breast cancer and breast cancer mortality increases with age; thus, we base starting screening on age.  This is the famous “start at age 40 vs start at age 50” debate we have been having for many years.  These investigators suggest that perhaps there are risk factors beyond age that could allow us to better target the women who could benefit from screening.  It is a good idea.

Unfortunately, the first paper (Nelson et al) shows that we just don’t know enough about the factors that increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer to be able to use this proposed strategy.  This causes the second paper (van Ravesteyn) to make some statements that may be misunderstood and confusing.

Nelson (the first paper) systematically reviews studies of the risk of breast cancer, finding that, other than age, extremely dense breasts on mammogram and presence of first-degree family history of breast cancer are the most important risk factors.  It is important to know that dense breasts on mammography may well reduce the ability of mammography to detect breast cancer, and that very few women will have 2 or more first degree relatives who have been diagnosed with breast cancer (which is the group that has a really substantial increased risk).  The problem is that neither of these factors increase risk more than about two-fold.  These factors would be much more useful if they increased risk by 15 or 20-fold.

Van Ravesteyn et al (the second paper) then use their models to find that if we could identify women in their 40s whose risk is more than 3 times usual risk, then the number of lives extended by screening those women in their 40s would be about the same as the number in their 50s whose lives are extended by screening.  (In neither case is this a large number of women.)  Unfortunately, they do not adequately address the issue of the harms of screening, especially including overdiagnosis, a problem that many people far underestimate. Because the models do not adequately address harms, and because we don’t know how much benefit there would be (if any) from screening women in their 40s with dense breasts, and because there are so few women in their 40s with 2 or more first degree relatives, this strategy really doesn’t get us very far toward making screening more efficient.  The best strategy is still what the USPSTF recommended: individual discussions between patient and medical team to develop an individual approach.

Some people who have wanted to start screening mammography at age 40 will read these papers and find a justification for starting early.  A better interpretation of these studies is that we still need better risk tools that help us become more efficient with breast cancer screening – and this means not only finding women whose risk is high enough that screening makes good sense AND also finding women in their 50s and 60s whose risk is low enough that screening doesn’t make sense.  Then we can truly say we are more efficient – screening women more likely to benefit and NOT screening women more likely to be harmed.”

View the original article here