Questões de Inglês Você está resolvendo questões.

If all of the children who currently are sedentary started exercising every day, societies could save enormous amounts of money in the coming decades and have healthier citizens as a whole, according to a remarkable new study. In the United States alone, we could expect to save more than $120 billion every year in health care and associated expenses. The study is the first to usesophisticated computer simulations to arrive at a literal and sobering societal price tag for allowing our children to be sedentary. Inactivity is, of course, widespread among young people today. Recent research shows that in the

United States and Europe, physical activity tends to peak at about age 7 for both boys and girls and tail off continually throughout adolescence. More than two-thirds of children in theUnited States rarely exercise at all. The immediate health consequences for inactive children and their families are worrisome. Childhood obesity, which is linked to lack of exercise, is common, as is the incidence of Type 2 diabetes and other health problems related to being overweight among children as young as 6. But the long-term financial costs ofinactivity in the young, both for them and society as a whole, have never been quantified. So for the new study, which was published this week in Health Affairs, researchers with the Global Obesity Prevention Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and other institutions decided to create a bogglingly complex computer model of what the future could look like if we do or do not get more of our children moving.

The researchers began by gathering as much public data as is currently available about the health, weight and physical activity patterns of all 31.7 million American children now aged 8 to 11, using large-scale databases from the Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups. The researchers fed this information into a computerized modeling program that created an electronic avatar for every American child today. In line with reality, two-thirds of these children were programmed to rarely exercise and many were overweight or obese.The scientists then had the simulated children grow up. Using estimations about how calorie intake and activity patterns affect body weight, the program changed each virtual child’s body day-by-day and year-by-year into adulthood. Most became increasingly overweight. As the simulated children became adults,the scientists then modeled each one’s health, based on obesity-associated risks for heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer, and also the probable financial price of dealing with those diseases (adjusted for future inflation), both in terms of direct expenses for hospitalizations, drugs and so on, and lost productivity because of someone’s being ill.

The results were staggering. According to the computer model, the costs of today’s 8- to 11- year-olds being inactive and consequently overweight would be almost $3 trillion in medical expenses and lost productivity every year once the children reached adulthood and for decades until

their deaths.

But when the researchers tweaked children’s activity levels within their model, thenumbers began to look quite different. If they presumed that, in an imaginary America, half of all children exercised vigorously for about 25 minutes three times a week, such as during active recess or sports or, more ambitiously, ran around and moved for at least an hour every day, which is the amount of youth exercise recommended by the C.D.C., their virtual lives were transformed. Most obviously, the incidence of childhood obesity fell by more than 4 percent, a change that resonated throughout the simulated children’s lives and society. There were about half a million fewer cases of adult-onset heart disease, diabetes, cancer and strokes in this simulation, and the society-wide costs associated with these illnesses dropped by about $32 billion every year if the children romped about for 25 minutes three times per week and by almost $37 billion if they moved for an hour every day.

The impacts were even more substantial when the researchers assumed that 100 percent of the children who are now sedentary got regular exercise. In this scenario, the annual total costs during adulthood from obesity-associated medical expenses and lost productivity plummeted by about $62 billion when children were active three times a week and by more than $120 billion every year when all of the virtual children played and moved for at least an hour each day.

From: https://www.nytimes.com May 3, 2017

Nearly 250 million young children across the world – 43% of under-fives – are unlikely to fulfil their potential as adults because of stunting and extreme poverty, new figures show. 

The first three years of life are crucial to a child’s development, according to a series of research papers published in the Lancet medical journal, which says there are also economic costs to the failure to help them grow. Those who do not get the nutrition, care and stimulation they need will earn about 26% less than others as adults. 

“The costs of not acting immediately to expand services to improve early childhood development are high for individuals and their families, as well as for societies,” say the researchers. The cost to some countries in GDP (gross domesticproduct), they estimate, is as much as twice their spending on healthcare. 

The figures come as the World Bank prepares for a summit meeting with finance ministersaround the globe to discuss how nurturing children in their early years will help their countries’ economic development. The World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, has told the Guardian that he intends to use the World Economic Forum in Davos each year to name and shame countries that do not reduce their high stunting rates. 

The Lancet series says the first 24 months of life are the critical time for avoiding stunting. Undernourished children living in extreme poverty end up small and their brain development is affected, so that they find it hard to learn. “Some catch-up is possible in height-for-age after 24 months, with uncertain cognitive gains,” says one of the papers. In sub-Saharan Africa, 66% of children are estimated to be at risk of poor development because of stunting and poverty. In south Asia, the figure is 65%, and 18% in the Caribbean and South America. Mothers need to be well nourished to give their babies a good start in life and be able to breastfeed. Families need help to give children the nutrition and nurturing they need, say researchers. That includes breastfeeding, free pre-school education – which is available in only two-thirds of high-income countries – paid leave for parents and a minimum wage to pull more families out of poverty. There are children at risk in all countries, rich and poor. The series points to early childhood programs that have been effective, including SureStart in the UK, Early Head Start in the US, Chile’s Crece Contigo and Grade R in South Africa In a Comment piece in the journal, Dr Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization, Anthony Lake, executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund, and Keith Hansen, vice-president for human development at the World Bank, write:

“The early childhood agenda is truly global, because the need is not limited to low-income countries. Children living in disadvantaged households in middle-income and wealthy countries are also at risk. “In targeting our investments, we should give priority to populations in the greatest need, such as families and children in extreme poverty and those who require humanitarian assistance. In addition, we have to build more resilient systems in vulnerable communities to mitigate the disruptive influence ofnatural disasters, fragility, conflict, and violence.” Wanda Wyporska, executive director of the Equality Trust, said: “It’s no surprise that the richer you are, the better your health is likely to be”. But the chasm of health inequality between rich and poor has widened in recent years. “Being born into a poor family shouldn’t mean decades of poorer health and even premature death, but that’s the shameful reality of the UK’s health gap. If you rank neighborhoods in the UK from the richest to the poorest, you have almost perfectly ranked health from the best to the worst.”

https://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment/ 2016/oct/04

The placebo effect: amazing and real

November 2, 2015

Robert H. Shmerling

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been

fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless

as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their

recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use

placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in

an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug.

Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the

active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help

researchers understand just how good the active drug is.

The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall

please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many

patients who take a placebo show improvement in their

symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how

powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment

aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological

changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to

those observed among people taking effective medications.

In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results

have been shown to improve among subsets of research

subjects who responded to a placebo.

Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a

placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications

at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion.

Understanding why certain people improve with placebo

treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If

you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so.

And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more

likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is

called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For

example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common

side effect of a particular medication, that person is more

likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a

placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably

plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of

commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

How a young student’s innovative idea hopes to boost response times for EMTs

By Woody Brown on June 1, 2015

Drones have been at the forefront of the national conversation for years now. As the components needed to create them grow smaller and more affordable, many companies and organizations have started exploring the potential that drones could have to improve our daily lives. Whether by delivering a product with unprecedented speed or taking photographs and video from new heights, drones have many capabilities, most of which we have yet to discover.

One young man, however, has envisioned a new way to use drones that could save thousands of lives. One of the greatest obstacles facing first responders and emergency medical technicians [EMTs] when it comes to the difficult business of saving lives is time. Think of your daily commute: people in the United States spend an average of 25.5 minutes traveling one-way to work every day. In bumperto- bumper traffic, blaring sirens and flashing lights are often not enough to clear a fast path for an ambulance to reach someone in need. During cardiac arrest, there are, at most, a few minutes to save a person’s life. After that, the mortality rate rises steeply. With stakes this high, every second counts.

Alec Momont, a graduate student in engineering at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, recognized this problem and saw a way to significantly reduce deaths that result from delayed emergency care. What if ambulances could fly? Or rather, what if we could make a drone that functioned like a stripped-down, lightweight automatic external defibrillator [AED]? AEDs, which can be found in schools, sports arenas and many government buildings, are significantly more effective than cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] at preventing fatalities resulting from cardiac arrest. CPR can be helpful, but an AED is better, and very few people have AEDs in their cars or homes.

As his master’s degree project, Momont built a prototype of this lifesaving drone. It contained an AED, a microphone and speakers. The average travel time, according to him, could be cut by 90 percent. Here’s how it works: In the event of cardiac arrest, a paramedic would respond to a call by flying the drone at a speed of 60 mph to the scene of the emergency. The paramedic would then give instructions to someone near the victim, who would position the AED. Once in place, the AED would operate automatically. The paramedic would be able to see through the camera whether or not the pads on the AED have been correctly positioned, and how the victim responds.

A dramatized video released by Momont’s university demonstrates all of this functionality. In it, a young woman calls emergency services in a panic because her father has had a heart attack. A calm-voiced EMT answers and guides her through the surprisingly simple process of finding and using the drone. Fewer than two minutes after she makes the call, her father sits up and hugs her.

The ambulance drone can increase the chances of surviving cardiac arrest from eight percent to 80 percent, Momont says in the video. The drone’s ability to travel as the crow flies frees it from infrastructural limitations that currently impede road-bound ambulances. “Using advanced production techniques such as 3D printed microstructures and carbon fiber frame construction, we were able to achieve a very lightweight design,” Momont says. “The result is an integrated solution that is clear in its orientation and friendly in appearance.”

Momont’s aim is to rapidly expand the existing framework of emergency services by constructing many of these drones over the next five years. Expenses are low: each drone is relatively cheap to make, about $18,600. By comparison, a typical ambulance costs more than $100,000, and a ride in one usually costs more than $1,000.

The ambulance drones can even fly autonomously (though legislation in many countries does not permit this yet). Several emergency service providers have already expressed interest. If the technology continues to receive financial support from other parties in the healthcare industry, Momont’s dream could very easily become a reality.

We live in a world where drones have, so far, been used mostly in armed conflict. Momont, however, has a different vision. In the near future that he describes, tens of thousands of needless deaths will be prevented with his ingenious invention. That is certainly welcome news, especially in the United States, which deals with skyrocketing numbers of heart-related ailments and disabilities. “Let’s use drones for a good purpose,” Momont says. “Let us use drones to save lives.”

Adapted from: <http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2015/05/ambulance-dronescould-save-thousands-of-lives.html>. Access on: 03 Oct. 2016.