The improvement of care for paediatric and congenital cardiac disease across the World: a challenge for the World Society for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery

The diagnosis and treatment for paediatric and congenital cardiac disease has undergone remarkable progress over the last 60 years. Unfortunately, this progress has been largely limited to the developed world. Yet every year approximately 90% of the more than 1,000,000 children who are born with congenital cardiac disease across the world receive either suboptimal care or are totally denied care. While in the developed world the focus has changed from an effort to decrease post-operative mortality to now improving quality of life and decreasing morbidity, which the focus of this Supplement, the rest of the world still needs to develop basic access to congenital cardiac care. The World Society for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery [http://www.wspchs.org/] was established in 2006. The Vision of the World Society is that every child born anywhere in the world with a congenital heart defect should have access to appropriate medical and surgical care. The Mission of the World Society is to promote the highest quality comprehensive care to all patients with pediatric and/or congenital heart disease, from the fetus to the adult, regardless of the patient`s economic means, with emphasis on excellence in education, research and community service. We present in this article an overview of the epidemiology of congenital cardiac disease, the current and future challenges to improve care in the developed and developing world, the impact of the globalization of cardiac surgery, and the role that the World Society should play. The World Society for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery is in a unique position to influence and truly improve the global care of children and adults with congenital cardiac disease throughout the world [http://www.wspchs.org/].

Evaluation of short dietary questions from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey

Six of the short dietary questions used in the 1995 National Nutrition Survey (see box below) were evaluated for relative validity both directly and indirectly and for consistency, by documenting the differences in mean intakes of foods and nutrients as measured on the 24-hour recall, between groups with different responses to the short questions. 1. Including snacks, how many times do you usually have something to eat in a day including evenings? 2. How many days per week do you usually have something to eat for breakfast? 3. In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more? 4. What type of milk do you usually consume? 5. How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1/2 cup cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables) 6. How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces) These comparisons were made for males and females overall and for population sub-groups of interest including: age, socio-economic disadvantage, region of residence, country of birth, and BMI category. Several limitations to this evaluation of the short questions, as discussed in the report, need to be kept in mind including: · The method for comparison available (24-hour recall) was not ideal (gold standard); as it measures yesterday’s intake. This limitation was overcome by examining only mean differences between groups of respondents, since mean intake for a group can provide a reasonable approximation for ‘usual’ intake. · The need to define and identify, post-hoc, from the 24-hour recall the number of eating occasions, and occasions identified by the respondents as breakfast. · Predetermined response categories for some of the questions effectively limited the number of categories available for evaluation. · Other foods and nutrients, not selected for this evaluation, may have an indirect relationship with the question, and might have shown stronger and more consistent responses. · The number of responses in some categories of the short questions eg for food security may have been too small to detect significant differences between population sub-groups. · No information was available to examine the validity of these questions for detecting differences over time (establishing trends) in food habits and indicators of selected nutrient intakes. By contrast, the strength of this evaluation was its very large sample size, (atypical of most validation studies of dietary assessment) and thus, the opportunity to investigate question performance in a range of broad population sub-groups compared with a well-conducted, quantified survey of intakes. The results of the evaluation are summarised below for each of the questions and specific recommendations for future testing, modifications and use provided for each question. The report concludes with some general recommendations for the further development and evaluation of short dietary questions.