Economic globalization, inequality and body mass index:a cross-national analysis of 127 countries

This article investigates to what extent the worldwide increase in body mass index (BMI) has been affected by economic globalization and inequality. We used time-series and longitudinal cross-national analysis of 127 countries from 1980 to 2008. Data on mean adult BMI were obtained from the Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors of Chronic Diseases Collaborating Group. Globalization was measured using the Swiss Economic Institute (KOF) index of economic globalization. Economic inequality between countries was measured with the mean difference in gross domestic product per capita purchasing power parity in international dollars. Economic inequality within countries was measured using the Gini index from the Standardized World Income Inequality Database. Other covariates including poverty, population size, urban population, openness to trade and foreign direct investment were taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI) database. Time-series regression analyses showed that the global increase in BMI is positively associated with both the index of economic globalization and inequality between countries, after adjustment for covariates. Longitudinal panel data analyses showed that the association between economic globalization and BMI is robust after controlling for all covariates and using different estimators. The association between economic inequality within countries and BMI, however, was significant only among high-income nations. More research is needed to study the pathways between economic globalization and BMI. These findings, however, contribute to explaining how contemporary globalization can be reformed to promote better health and control the global obesity epidemic. © 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

A national survey of the mangement of delirium in UK intensive care units

Background: Delirium is an acute organ dysfunction common amongst patients treated in intensive care units. The associated morbidity and mortality are known to be substantial. Previous surveys have described which screening tools are used to diagnose delirium and which medications are used to treat delirium, but these data are not available for the United Kingdom. Aim: This survey aimed to describe the UK management of delirium by consultant intensivists. Additionally, knowledge and attitudes towards management of delirium were sought. The results will inform future research in this area. Methods: A national postal survey of members of the UK Intensive Care Society was performed. A concise two page questionnaire survey was sent, with a second round of surveys sent to non-respondents after 6 weeks. The questionnaire was in tick-box format. Results: Six hundred and eighty-one replies were received from 1308 questionnaires sent, giving a response rate of 52%. Twenty-five percent of respondents routinely screen for delirium, but of these only 55% use a screening tool validated for use in intensive care. The majority (80%) of those using a validated instrument used the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. Hyperactive delirium is treated pharmacologically by 95%; hypoactive delirium is treated pharmacologically by 25%, with haloperidol the most common agent used in both. Over 80% of respondents agreed that delirium prolongs mechanical ventilation and hospital stay and requires active treatment. Conclusions: This UK survey demonstrates screening for delirium is sporadic. Pharmacological treatment is usually with haloperidol in spite of the limited evidence to support this practice. Hypoactive delirium is infrequently treated pharmacologically.