Healthcare Encounters for Pokémon Go: Risks and Benefits of Playing.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to quantify the health risks and benefits of Pokémon Go, an augmented reality game played on the mobile phone utilizing real-world locations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthcare encounters containing references to Pokémon Go in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from July 5, 2016 to November 5, 2016 were reviewed. Subjects were classified according to the nature of the healthcare encounter subsequent to playing Pokémon Go: adverse event/injury, self-reported benefit, or incidental mention. Comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric test where variables were continuous and the chi-squared or Fisher's exact test where variables were binomial. RESULTS: Of 222 Pokémon Go players reporting an adverse event or benefit, 75 (33.8%) experienced adverse events and 147 (66.2%) reported benefits. Among our cohort, 114 subjects (54.0%) were obese, and 62 (27.9%) were diabetic or prediabetic. More subjects reporting benefits had an endocrine-related comorbidity than those reporting injuries (40.1% vs. 16.0%, P < 0.001). Median family income was higher in the benefit group than in the adverse event group ($83,846 vs. $70,378, P = 0.027). Of 75 subjects having adverse events, 8 (10.7%) had severe injuries, including fractures and head trauma, with 4 (5.3%) having inpatient stays. Most adverse events were musculoskeletal or skin injuries (n = 51, 68.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Injuries were similar to those seen with other light-to-moderate outdoor physical activities. Given KPNC's membership of 3.85 million, the number of severe injuries reported was low; this suggests that the game is safe to play. Pokémon Go may be reaching a population that requires increased physical activity.

Barriers impeding serologic screening for celiac disease in clinically high-prevalence populations.

BACKGROUND: Celiac disease is present in ~1% of the general population in the United States and Europe. Despite the availability of inexpensive serologic screening tests, ~85% of individuals with celiac disease remain undiagnosed and there is an average delay in diagnosis of symptomatic individuals with celiac disease that ranges from ~5.8-11 years. This delay is often attributed to the use of a case-based approach for detection rather than general population screening for celiac disease, and deficiencies at the level of health care professionals. This study aimed to assess if patient-centered barriers have a role in impeding serologic screening for celiac disease in individuals from populations that are clinically at an increased risk for celiac disease. METHODS: 119 adults meeting study inclusion criteria for being at a higher risk for celiac disease were recruited from the general population. Participants completed a survey/questionnaire at the William K. Warren Medical Research Center for Celiac Disease that addressed demographic information, celiac disease related symptoms (gastrointestinal and extraintestinal), family history, co-morbid diseases and conditions associated with celiac disease, and patient-centered barriers to screening for celiac disease. All participants underwent serologic screening for celiac disease using the IgA tissue transglutaminase antibody (IgA tTG) and, if positive, testing for IgA anti-endomysial antibody (IgA EMA) as a confirmatory test. RESULTS: Two barriers to serologic testing were significant across the participant pool. These were participants not knowing they were at risk for celiac disease before learning of the study, and participants not knowing where to get tested for celiac disease. Among participants with incomes less than $25,000/year and those less than the median age, not having a doctor to order the test was a significant barrier, and this strongly correlated with not having health insurance. Symptoms and co-morbid conditions were similar among those whose IgA tTG were negative and those who tested positive. CONCLUSION: There are significant patient-centered barriers that impede serologic screening and contribute to the delayed detection and diagnosis of celiac disease. These barriers may be lessened by greater education of the public and health care professionals about celiac disease symptoms, risk factors, and serologic testing.