Why parents are skeptical about using probiotics preventively for small children: a Danish qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research on the health effects of probiotics continues to grow, but less is known about consumers' perceptions of probiotic products and their health effects, and the impact of these perceptions on consumption. Particularly little is known about the way parents perceive probiotic consumption by small children, and whether parental willingness to use probiotics as a treatment differs from their willingness to use them preventively. The aim of this study was to explore how parents perceive probiotic consumption by their small children, and their willingness to use such products in treatment and prevention. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 17 Danish parents with at least one child aged 8-18 months. The interview guide centered on parental consumer practices and health-related attitudes both in general and in relation to probiotics. The data were coded in Nvivo and analyzed in a four-step analytical approach. RESULTS: Parents are willing to use probiotics as a treatment but are skeptical about preventive use. Some parents define probiotics as a kind of medicine they use only if their child is ill. Probiotics also conflict with parental understandings of their children as small, perfect parts of nature. Parents worry that probiotics may cause an imbalance in the vulnerable perfection of a small child. CONCLUSION: The study shows that parental probiotic consumption practices are embedded in a cultural understanding of the child as both a perfect example of nature and vulnerable. Health authorities need to take this understanding into account if parents are to be successfully encouraged to use probiotics preventively.

Do healthy school meals affect illness, allergies and school attendance in 8- to 11-year-old children? A cluster-randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: A nutritionally adequate diet in childhood is important for health and resistance of allergies and infections. This study explored the effects of school meals rich in fish, vegetables and fibre on school attendance, asthma, allergies and illness in 797 Danish 8- to 11-year-old children. No comparable studies conducted in high-income settings have been identified. SUBJECTS/METHODS: The OPUS School Meal Study was a cluster-randomised cross-over trial. Children from third and fourth grades at nine Danish schools received school meals or usual packed lunch (control) for two 3-month periods. Occurrence and duration of illnesses, asthma and allergies during the last 14 days were recorded by parental questionnaires at baseline and after each 3-month period. Self-reported well-being was assessed by visual analogue scales. RESULTS: The school meals did not affect school attendance, parent-reported occurrence or duration of asthma and allergies or self-reported well-being. The most common symptoms of illness were stomach pain (24%), headache (28%) and cold (24%). A slightly higher number of children experienced headaches in the school meal (27%) compared with the control period (22%) (P=0.02). However, subgroup analyses showed that this effect was only seen in children eating school meals in the classroom (P=0.007), and not in common dining areas (P=0.2). No effect was found on other symptoms of illness. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of nutritionally balanced school meals did not affect school attendance, asthma, allergies, illness or well-being in 8- to 11-year-old children. The slight increase in occurrence of headaches seems to be related to the physical eating environment.

Back-transformation of treatment differences--an approximate method.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Transformation of outcomes is frequently used in the analysis of studies in clinical nutrition. However, back-transformation of estimated treatment means and differences is complicated by the nonlinear nature of the transformations. It is not straightforward to obtain an estimated treatment difference that can be interpreted without any reference to the additional predictors included in the statistical model; and moreover, standard errors are not easily available. The aim of this work was to provide a generally applicable, yet operational procedure for obtaining back-transformed estimated differences, and corresponding standard errors and 95% confidence intervals. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Based on data from two randomized controlled studies and an exemplary data set that had all previously been published, we evaluated our approximate procedure by comparing results for different approaches for showing back-transformed estimated treatment differences. RESULTS: Estimated differences obtained on logarithm, square root and reciprocal square root-transformed scales were back-transformed into estimated differences on the original scales, and these estimates were in good agreement with the results reported by the original studies. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed approximate procedure provides a flexible approach for obtaining quite accurate back-transformed estimated differences in terms of medians and for deriving the corresponding standard errors.