ocean activity 2009 required york 2009 per digital
fitzpatricof CO4:19AM January 24, 2010
What is the cause of the preterm babies? Maybe that area should be addressed as well as the medical care of the babies after they are delivered.
Curlyof TX5:40PM November 18, 2009
This is from "The Times" of London:
Powerful new evidence about the way that vitamin D can reduce the risk of premature births and boost the health of newborn babies has emerged from an international research conference in Bruges. Delegates were told that mothers who were given ten times the usual dose of vitamin D during pregnancy had their risk of premature birth reduced by half and had fewer small babies.
The findings emerge after evidence, revealed in The Times, that vitamin D — the “sunshine vitamin” — could have a dramatic effect in combating Scotland’s appalling health record. Statistics showing that Scots — particularly in the west — are exposed to less sunshine than those living farther south correlate exactly with higher incidences of heart disease, some cancers and multiple sclerosis. The Times has campaigned to have vitamin D recommended and prescribed as part of a national health programme.
The vitamin’s benefits have been observed previously in uncontrolled studies of pregnant women and babies, but this is the first time they have been found in a scientific trial which met the most stringent criteria for “evidence-based inquiry”. The findings may make it necessary for health departments to revise advice presently given to pregnant and breastfeeding women in the UK.
The investigators, Dr Bruce Hollis and Dr Carol Wagner of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, met rigorous safety tests which were required by the Federal Drug Administration. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The women, who all lived around Charleston, South Carolina, began taking 4,000 IUs per day of vitamin D after their first clinic visit at about three months of pregnancy. (4,000 IUs or international units equals 100 microgms). A control group took 400 IUs,equivalent to the normal recommended dose in the US and UK. The women had their blood and urine tested monthly to ensure calcium and vitamin D levels were within safe limits.
Over the 2½ years of the study thousands of tests were made and monitored by an external safety committee. No test showed any adverse effect of the large dose of vitamin D. The average level of vitamin D in the women’s blood increased by about 50 per cent.
About 600 women took part in the trial which included similar numbers of African Americans, Hispanic Americans and whites. Premature babies born to women taking high doses of vitamin D were reduced by half at both 32 and 37 weeks, and there were also fewer babies who were born “small for dates” — that is smaller than would be expected considering the length of time spent in the womb.
The women had a 25 per cent reduction in infections, particularly respiratory infections such as colds and flu as well as fewer infections of the vagina and the gums. The “core morbidities of pregnancy” were also reduced by 30 per cent in the women who took the high-dose vitamin D.
Mike Andersonof WA1:39PM November 18, 2009
Smoking, elective c section and lack of insurance, really?
Notice how the states with the highest rate are sounthern states. Eat better, and maybe babies will stop falling out of women so quickly. ALSO! notice the states that have improved numbers, most of those states have legislated the practice of midwifery. This country is so backwards it makes me sick.
Eat healthy, drink a lot of water, and find someone who cares about you as a whole, not just the money you will be giving them.
Mad Mommaof IN1:12PM November 18, 2009
I can hear all the Republican voters in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana parroting the conservative distortion that insists America has the "best health system in the world". And yet, in measure after measure, America's health system comes up short.
Victoria, B.C. in Canada has the highest life expectancy of any city in the world, outside of Japan. Must be all those "death panels" Republicans keep trying to scare folks with. Or just their "socialized medicine" problem. Seems to work for them.
thebob.bobof MS1:08PM November 18, 2009
It's a misnomer to compare US preterm birth rates to the world preterm birth rates. Each country has their own definition of limits of viability for preterm infants. Some countries do not resuscitate preterm infants below 28 wks and other countries below 25 wks gestation. So do these countries include only preterm births at their defined limits of viability? In the US, some institution resuscitate at 22 wks , most at 23 wks and above gestation. Some states consider any infants born with heart rate as live birth even if it's 21 or 22 wks. All these differrences can add to a higher preterm birth rate in US.
U.S. News's "Best" delivers recognized, authoritative information and clear, objective rankings that help readers plan for their life and ultimately, make the most of it.
Reader Comments
Back to article
fitzpatric of CO 4:19AM January 24, 2010
Curly of TX 5:40PM November 18, 2009
Mike Anderson of WA 1:39PM November 18, 2009
Mad Momma of IN 1:12PM November 18, 2009
thebob.bob of MS 1:08PM November 18, 2009
MJO of FL 12:33AM November 18, 2009