Press Releases Saturday 26 June 1999
No 7200 Volume 318
Please remember to credit the BMJ as source when publicising
an
article and to tell your readers that they can read its full text on
the
journal's web site (http://www.bmj.com).
If your story is posted on a website please include a link back to
the source BMJ article (URL's are given under titles).
(1) NO HEALTH
PROTECTION FROM ALCOHOL - BUT
HEAVY DRINKERS
FACE RISK OF STROKE
(2) RISK
FROM GETTING PREGNANT TOO SOON AFTER A
STILLBIRTH
(3) "BABY
CHECK " INFORMATION FOR PARENTS DOES
NOT AFFECT
FREQUENCY OF CONTACT WITH FAMILY
DOCTORS
(1) NO HEALTH PROTECTION
FROM ALCOHOL - BUT
HEAVY DRINKERS FACE RISK OF STROKE
(Alcohol consumption and mortality
from all causes, coronary
heart disease, and stroke: results
from a prospective cohort study
of Scottish men with 21 years of
follow up)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7200/1725
A large-scale long-term study of working
men in Scotland,
reported in this week's BMJ, found no
support for the theory that
drinking moderate amounts of alcohol has
any protective effect on
health. But men drinking more than 35
units of alcohol a week
were twice as likely to die from a stroke.
Carole Hart and co authors studied 5,766
men from various
workplaces in Glasgow, Clydebank and Grangemouth
over a 21
year period. For non drinkers and moderate
drinkers (up to 14
units of alcohol a week) the risk of any
cause of death was
similar, but the risk of dying was higher
for men drinking more
than 22 units a week - the equivalent
of 11 pints of beer a week
or half a bottle of wine a day.
This study measured a wide range of socioeconomic
variables and
other factors, such as smoking habits,
which could affect results.
Unlike other studies that found a protective
effect of alcohol for
coronary heart disease, the researchers
found no apparent relation
between alcohol consumption and risk of
death from coronary
heart disease.
In contrast they found a strong relation
with risk of dying from
stroke. The BMJ report states "Drinkers
of over 35 units a week
had double the risk of mortality (from
stroke) compared with non
drinkers."
Contact:
Professor George Davey Smith, Dept Social
Medicine,
University of Bristol
(2) RISK FROM GETTING
PREGNANT TOO SOON AFTER A
STILLBIRTH
(Stillbirth as risk factor for depression
and anxiety in the
subsequent pregnancy: cohort study)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7200/1721
Women may need to wait a year before trying
to conceive again
after a stillbirth, according to a paper
in this week's BMJ.
Hughes et al followed the progress of 60
women who were
pregnant following a stillbirth, and 60
women having their first
baby. The women who conceived less than
12 months after the
stillbirth were significantly more anxious
and depressed during
pregnancy than other mothers and were
again depressed a year
after the birth of their live baby.
The BMJ paper says: "As there are problems
for mother and
infant associated with high anxiety and
depression during and
after pregnancy, there may be an advantage
in waiting 12 months
before the next conception."
Women who conceived more than 12 months
after the loss of
their stillborn baby were similar to the
"control" women in the
study who had not suffered a stillbirth.
The women who became
pregnant at least a year after the stillbirth
had a lower trait anxiety
a year after the next birth.
A key message from the BMJ paper is: "Women
may need a year
to mourn the lost child before beginning
another pregnancy, or
women who choose to conceive sooner may
be intrinsically more
vulnerable to depression and anxiety."
Studies consistently report
that about 50% of women become pregnant
within 12 months
after loss. Hughes et al note that most
women who went ahead
quickly with another pregnancy did not
experience high levels of
anxiety and depression, so for some parents
other considerations
may outweigh the possible risk of psychological
symptoms.
Contact:
Dr P.M.Hughes, Department of Psychiatry,
St George's Hospital
Medical School, London
(3) "BABY CHECK " INFORMATION
FOR PARENTS DOES
NOT AFFECT FREQUENCY OF CONTACT WITH
FAMILY
DOCTORS
(Randomised controlled trial of effect
of Baby Check on use of
health services in first 6 months
of life)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7200/1740
(Baby Check can improve the quality
of a consultation)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7200/1711
Baby Check is a booklet designed to help
parents know when
their babies are ill and when to visit
the doctor and aims to
reassure parents about minor illness.
A randomised trial
conducted in the Greater Glasgow area
by Thomson et al shows
that routine distribution of Baby Check
to mothers does not affect
how often they consult GPs or health visitors.
The authors were not aiming to affect consultation
rates but an
editorial by David Jewell of the Department
of Social Medicine at
the University of Bristol argues that
it is probably not worthwhile
aiming to reduce consultation rates for
the vulnerable age group of
babies under six months. Dr Jewell argues
that Baby Check may
empower parents to have better consultations
with their GPs and
has proved its ability to identify serious
illness accurately. Both Dr
Jewell and Drs Thomson et al express concern
at the high level of
antibiotic prescribing for babies under
six months.
Contact:
For paper : Hilary Thomson, Research Fellow,
Department of
General Practice, University of Glasgow
Email: Hilary.Thomson{at}ed.ac.uk
For editorial : David Jewell, Consultant
Senior Lecturer, Division
of Primary Health Care, University of
Bristol
Email: david.jewell{at}bristol.ac.uk
FOR ACCREDITED JOURNALISTS
Embargoed press releases and articles are available from:
Public Affairs Division
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JR
(contact Jill Shepherd;pressoffice{at}bma.org.uk)
and from:
the EurekAlert website, run by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science
(http://www.eurekalert.org)
What's new
Keep updated
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Print issues
