Background

There is limited evidence in preschool children linking media use, such as television/video viewing and computer use, to obesity and adiposity. We tested three hypotheses in preschool children: 1) that watching > 2 hours of TV/videos daily is associated with obesity and adiposity, 2) that computer use is associated with obesity and adiposity, and 3) that > 2 hours of media use daily is associated with obesity and adiposity.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using nationally representative data on children, aged 2-5 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2002. Our main outcome measures were 1) weight status: normal versus overweight or at risk for overweight, and 2) adiposity: the sum of subscapular and triceps skinfolds (mm). Our main exposures were TV/video viewing (< or = 2 or > 2 hours/day), computer use (users versus non-users), and media use (< or = 2 or > 2 hours/day). We used multivariate Poisson and linear regression analyses, adjusting for demographic covariates, to test the independent association between TV/video viewing, computer use, or overall media use and a child's weight status or adiposity.

Results

Watching > 2 hours/day of TV/videos was associated with being overweight or at risk for overweight (Prevalence ratio = 1.34, 95% CI [1.07, 1.66]; n =1340) and with higher skinfold thicknesses (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [0.19, 1.96]; n = 1337). Computer use > 0 hours/day was associated with higher skinfold thicknesses (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [0.04, 1.07]; n = 1339). Media use had borderline significance with higher skinfold thicknesses (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.75], P=0.06; n = 1334)

Conclusion

Watching > 2 hours/day of TV/videos in US preschool-age children was associated with a higher risk of being overweight or at risk for overweight and higher adiposity-findings in support of national guidelines to limit preschool children's media use. Computer use was also related to higher adiposity in preschool children, but not weight status. Intervention studies to limit preschool children's media use are warranted.

Objective: To evaluate changes in insulin pump use over two decades in a national U.S. sample. Research Design and Methods: We used data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study to perform a serial cross-sectional analysis to evaluate changes in insulin pump use in participants <20 years old with type 1 diabetes by race/ethnicity and markers of socioeconomic status across four time periods between 2001 and 2019. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to assess insulin pump use. Temporal changes by subgroup were assessed through interactions. Results: Insulin pump use increased from 31.7% to 58.8%, but the disparities seen in pump use persisted and were unchanged across subgroups over time. Odds ratio for insulin pump use in Hispanic (0.57, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.45-0.73), Black (0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37), and Other race (0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.76) participants were significantly lower than White participants. Those with ≤high school degree (0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.47) and some college (0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79) had lower use compared to those with ≥bachelors degree. Those with public insurance (0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00) had lower use than those with private insurance. Those with an annual household income <$25K (0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.53), $25K-$49K (0.52, 95% CI 0.43-0.63), and $50K-$74K (0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) had lower use compared to those with income ≥$75,000. Conclusion: Over the past two decades, there was no improvement in the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in insulin pump use, despite an overall increase in use. Studies that evaluate barriers or test interventions to improve technology access are needed to address these persistent inequities.

Background

Although Latinos, African-Americans, and American Indians/Alaska Natives comprise 34% of Americans, these under-represented minorities (URMs) account for only 7% of US medical-school faculty. Even when URMs become faculty, they face many substantial challenges to success. Little has been published, however, on keys to academic success for URM young faculty investigators.

Methods

The Research in Academic Pediatrics Initiative on Diversity (RAPID) goal is to enhance the professional advancement of URM junior faculty pursuing research careers in general academic pediatrics. One important RAPID component is the annual mentoring/career-development conference, which targets URM residents, fellows, and junior faculty, and has included 62 URM participants since its 2013 inception. A conference highlight is the panel discussion on keys to academic success for URM young investigators, conducted by the RAPID National Advisory Committee, a diverse group of leading senior researchers. The article aim was to provide a guide to academic success for URM young investigators using the 2018 RAPID Conference panel discussion. A modified Delphi technique was used to provide a systematic approach to obtaining answers to six key questions using an expert panel: the single most important key to success for URM young investigators; ensuring optimal mentorship; how to respond when patients/families say, "I don't want you to see my child because you are ____"; best strategies for maximizing funding success; how to balance serving on time-consuming committees with enough time to advance research/career objectives; and the single thing you wish someone had told you which would have substantially enhanced your success early on.

Results/conclusions

This is the first published practical guide on keys to academic success for URM young investigators. Identified keys to success included having multiple mentors, writing prolifically, being tenaciously persistent, having mentors who are invested in you, dealing with families who do not want you to care for their child because of your race/ethnicity by seeking to understand the reasons and debriefing with colleagues, seeking non-traditional funding streams, balancing committee work with having enough time to advance one's research and career by using these opportunities to generate scholarly products, and asking for all needed resources when negotiating for new jobs.

Background

The number of racial/ethnic minority children will exceed the number of white children in the USA by 2018. Although 38% of Americans are minorities, only 12% of pediatricians, 5% of medical-school faculty, and 3% of medical-school professors are minorities. Furthermore, only 5% of all R01 applications for National Institutes of Health grants are from African-American, Latino, and American Indian investigators. Prompted by the persistent lack of diversity in the pediatric and biomedical research workforces, the Academic Pediatric Association Research in Academic Pediatrics Initiative on Diversity (RAPID) was initiated in 2012. RAPID targets applicants who are members of an underrepresented minority group (URM), disabled, or from a socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged background. The program, which consists of both a research project and career and leadership development activities, includes an annual career-development and leadership conference which is open to any resident, fellow, or junior faculty member from an URM, disabled, or disadvantaged background who is interested in a career in academic general pediatrics.

Methods

As part of the annual RAPID conference, a Hot Topic Session is held in which the young investigators spend several hours developing a list of hot topics on the most useful faculty and career-development issues. These hot topics are then posed in the form of six "burning questions" to the RAPID National Advisory Committee (comprised of accomplished, nationally recognized senior investigators who are seasoned mentors), the RAPID Director and Co-Director, and the keynote speaker.

Results/conclusions

The six compelling questions posed by the 10 young investigators-along with the responses of the senior conference leadership-provide a unique resource and "survival guide" for ensuring the academic success and optimal career development of young investigators in academic pediatrics from diverse backgrounds. A rich conversation ensued on the topics addressed, consisting of negotiating for protected research time, career trajectories as academic institutions move away from an emphasis on tenure-track positions, how "non-academic" products fit into career development, racism and discrimination in academic medicine and how to address them, coping with isolation as a minority faculty member, and how best to mentor the next generation of academic physicians.

Background

Food insecurity (FI) has been associated with poor access to health care. It is unclear whether this association is beyond that predicted by income, education, and health insurance. FI may serve as a target for intervention given the many programs designed to ameliorate FI. We examined the association of FI with being up-to-date to colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening guidelines.

Methods

Nine NCI-designated cancer centers surveyed adults in their catchment areas using demographic items and a two-item FI questionnaire. For the colorectal cancer screening sample (n = 4,816), adults ages 50-75 years who reported having a stool test in the past year or a colonoscopy in the past 10 years were considered up-to-date. For the breast cancer screening sample (n = 2,449), female participants ages 50-74 years who reported having a mammogram in the past 2 years were up-to-date. We used logistic regression to examine the association between colorectal cancer or breast cancer screening status and FI, adjusting for race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and other sociodemographic covariates.

Results

The prevalence of FI was 18.2% and 21.6% among colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening participants, respectively. For screenings, 25.6% of colorectal cancer and 34.1% of breast cancer participants were not up-to-date. In two separate adjusted models, FI was significantly associated with lower odds of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening [OR, 0.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5-0.99)] and breast cancer screening (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.96).

Conclusions

FI was inversely associated with being up-to-date for colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening.

Impact

Future studies should combine FI and cancer screening interventions to improve screening rates.