Television viewing habits associated with obesity risk factors: a survey of Melbourne schoolchildren.

Objectives: To examine whether children’s television viewing may be a useful indicator of risk of obesity-promoting versus healthy eating behaviours, low-level physical activity (PA) and overweight or obesity among children of primary school entry and exit ages. Design: Cross-sectional study, stratified by area-level socioeconomic status. Participants and setting: 1560 children (613 aged 5–6 years [50% boys], and 947 aged 10–12 years [46% boys]) from 24 primary schools in Melbourne, Australia, randomly selected proportionate to school size between 1 November 2002 and 30 December 2003 . Main outcome measures: Parents’ reports of the time their child spends watching television, their participation in organised physical activities (PA), and their food intake; each child’s measured height and weight and their PA levels as assessed by accelerometry for one week. Results: After adjusting for the age and sex of child, the parents’ level of education, clustering by school, and all other health behaviour variables, children who watched television for > 2 h/day were significantly more likely than children who watched television for ≤ 2 h/day to: to have one or more serves/day of high energy drinks (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.61–3.32), and to have one or more serves/day of savoury snacks (AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04–2.17). They were also less likely to have two or more serves/day of fruit (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46–0.74), or to participate in any organised PA (AOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34–0.80). Conclusions: Health practitioners in the primary care setting may find that asking whether a child watches television for more than 2 hours daily can be a useful indicator of a child’s risk of poor diet and low physical activity level.

Impossible triangles: flat actors in telematic theatre

In fact, in this scene, both A and B are online. A is in a classroom at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands, and B is in a television studio at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia. The two locations are connected through video conference and, in each space, a local audience watches the local performer in the room, and the remote performer projected on a screen. The performers are captured in profile, and appear to be looking at computer screens in front of them but cannot actually see one another. The text is consciously banal, composed to replicate the broken rhythms and sequences, flattened tone and repetitions of scrolling words in a text box on a screen. Information about presence and absence (A or B is offline or online) is spoken as text. Although the two performers speak in accents that declare their different language/ cultures, the vernacular is generic 'internetslang'. The relatively monotonous and unpunctuated delivery of the textual rhythms is interrupted and counterpointed by a sound lag of nearly a second, and by a faint audio echo as one voice 'lands' in the second location. Its orchestration allows the sound fracture and dispersal in some moments. In other moments, the actors anticipate or absorb the gaps in transmission, driving the speech rhythms through so that the utterance 'arrives' precisely at the end of the prompt line.

Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.

Smartwatch: performance evaluation for long-term heart rate monitoring

Recent advancement in wearable technologies, particularly smart watches embedded with powerful processors, memory subsystems with various built-in sensors such as ac-celerometer, gyroscope and optical sensor in one single package has opened a whole new application space. One of the main applications of interest is the monitoring of movement patterns, heart rate, ECG and PPG particularly for longer duration's in natural environments. In this study, we conducted a performance evaluation on the optical heart rate sensor of the smartwatch with respect to the commonly used ECG and PPG devices. Results have shown that the heart rate acquired from the smartwatch is reasonably accurate with a high degree of correlation. Further, we conducted a preliminary exerise to evaluate sleep quality using the heart rate readings and accelerometer readings captured from the smartwatch and compared with a commercially available and clinically used non-contact sleep sensor, RESMED S+.