Case-control study of association of maternal recall of diarrhea or use of antimicrobials in the periconceptional period and neural tube defects

In June 1995 a case-control study was initiated by the Texas Department of Health among Mexican American women residing in the fourteen counties of the Texas-Mexico border. Case-women had carried infants with neural tube defect. Control-women had given birth to infants without neural tube defects. The case-control protocol included a general questionnaire which elicited information regarding illnesses experienced and antibiotics taken from three months prior to conception to three months after conception. An assessment of the associations between periconceptional diarrhea and the risk of neural tube defects indicated that the unadjusted association of diarrhea and risk of neural tube defect was significant (OR = 3.3, CI = 1.4–7.6). The unadjusted association of use of oral antimicrobials and risk of neural tube defect was also significant (OR = 3.4, CI = 1.6–7.3). These associations persisted among women who had no fever during the periconceptional period and were present irrespective of folate intake. Diarrhea was associated with an increased risk of NTD independent of use of antimicrobials. The converse was also true; antimicrobials were associated with an increased risk of NTD independent of diarrhea. Further research regarding these potentially modifiable risk factors is warranted. Replication of these findings could result in interventions in addition to folate supplementation. ^

Nurse likelihood to report a pediatric medication error: Examination of the "pre-reporting" period

Each year, hospitalized patients experience 1.5 million preventable injuries from medication errors and hospitals incur an additional $3.5 billion in cost (Aspden, Wolcott, Bootman, & Cronenwatt; (2007). It is believed that error reporting is one way to learn about factors contributing to medication errors. And yet, an estimated 50% of medication errors go unreported. This period of medication error pre-reporting, with few exceptions, is underexplored. The literature focuses on error prevention and management, but lacks a description of the period of introspection and inner struggle over whether to report an error and resulting likelihood to report. Reporting makes a nurse vulnerable to reprimand, legal liability, and even threat to licensure. For some nurses this state may invoke a disparity between a person‘s belief about him or herself as a healer and the undeniable fact of the error.^ This study explored the medication error reporting experience. Its purpose was to inform nurses, educators, organizational leaders, and policy-makers about the medication error pre-reporting period, and to contribute to a framework for further investigation. From a better understanding of factors that contribute to or detract from the likelihood of an individual to report an error, interventions can be identified to help the nurse come to a psychologically healthy resolution and help increase reporting of error in order to learn from error and reduce the possibility of future similar error.^ The research question was: "What factors contribute to a nurse's likelihood to report an error?" The specific aims of the study were to: (1) describe participant nurses' perceptions of medication error reporting; (2) describe participant explanations of the emotional, cognitive, and physical reactions to making a medication error; (3) identify pre-reporting conditions that make it less likely for a nurse to report a medication error; and (4) identify pre-reporting conditions that make it more likely for a nurse to report a medication error.^ A qualitative research study was conducted to explore the medication error experience and in particular the pre-reporting period from the perspective of the nurse. A total of 54 registered nurses from a large private free-standing not-for-profit children's hospital in the southwestern United States participated in group interviews. The results describe the experience of the nurse as well as the physical, emotional, and cognitive responses to the realization of the commission of a medication error. The results also reveal factors that make it more and less likely to report a medication error.^ It is clear from this study that upon realization that he or she has made a medication error, a nurse's foremost concern is for the safety of the patient. Fear was also described by each group of nurses. The nurses described a fear of several things including physician reaction, manager reaction, peer reaction, as well as family reaction and possible lack of trust as a result. Another universal response was the description of a struggle with guilt, shame, imperfection, blaming oneself, and questioning one's competence.^

Age -period -cohort analysis: An extension of Cox's lifetable regression with time -dependent covariates

It is well known that an identification problem exists in the analysis of age-period-cohort data because of the relationship among the three factors (date of birth + age at death = date of death). There are numerous suggestions about how to analyze the data. No one solution has been satisfactory. The purpose of this study is to provide another analytic method by extending the Cox's lifetable regression model with time-dependent covariates. The new approach contains the following features: (1) It is based on the conditional maximum likelihood procedure using a proportional hazard function described by Cox (1972), treating the age factor as the underlying hazard to estimate the parameters for the cohort and period factors. (2) The model is flexible so that both the cohort and period factors can be treated as dummy or continuous variables, and the parameter estimations can be obtained for numerous combinations of variables as in a regression analysis. (3) The model is applicable even when the time period is unequally spaced.^ Two specific models are considered to illustrate the new approach and applied to the U.S. prostate cancer data. We find that there are significant differences between all cohorts and there is a significant period effect for both whites and nonwhites. The underlying hazard increases exponentially with age indicating that old people have much higher risk than young people. A log transformation of relative risk shows that the prostate cancer risk declined in recent cohorts for both models. However, prostate cancer risk declined 5 cohorts (25 years) earlier for whites than for nonwhites under the period factor model (0 0 0 1 1 1 1). These latter results are similar to the previous study by Holford (1983).^ The new approach offers a general method to analyze the age-period-cohort data without using any arbitrary constraint in the model. ^