Releases Saturday 2 June 2001
No 7298 Volume 322

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://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) Time targets for urgent caesarean delivery are difficult to
achieve but may not be necessary

(2) Breast feeding rates in Scottish mothers improve but will fail
to hit Government targets

(3) Can voting Labour lead to an early demise?

(4) Probiotic milk may help prevent common childhood
infections



(1) Time targets for urgent caesarean delivery are difficult to
achieve but may not be necessary

(Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section
-- are current standards achievable? Observational case
series)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7298/1330

(Prospective 12 month study of 30 minute decision to
delivery intervals for "emergency" caesarean section)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7298/1334


(Editorial: Caesarean section for fetal distress)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7298/1316

Two papers and an editorial in this week's BMJ describe the
difficulties in meeting the target of 30 minutes between the
decision that an urgent caesarean section is necessary and
delivering the baby.

However the failure to meet the 30 minute recommendation
in routine practice does not seem to increase neonatal death.
Tuffnell, Wilkinson and Beresford from the maternity unit at
Bradford NHS Trust describe three audit cycles over four
years, followed by a continuous audit of deliveries over 32
months in a district general hospital delivering 5,500 babies
per year.

The authors describe the obstacles to meeting the 30 minute
target which were uncovered by audit and the steps taken to
address them. Making prepacked spinal anaesthesia
equipment available was one reform introduced to reduce
delay. Ensuring that a second operating theatre would be
opened if clinicians had concerns that a second woman might
require urgent caesarean delivery was another reform and
reducing the delay in moving the woman to theatre was a
further initiative designed to help meet the 30 minute target.

Many national bodies recommend that when a decision is
made to deliver a baby by caesarean section because of fetal
distress, the baby should be delivered within 30 minutes. This
study found that delivery within 30 minutes was achievable in
only two out of three cases but delay in delivery made no
difference to the rate of admission to special care for babies
over 36 weeks' gestation. The authors question whether
failure to meet the standard should be regarded as
"unreasonable" medico-legally.

In a second paper, MacKenzie and Cooke from the
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the John
Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford also question the benefit and
wisdom of aiming to achieve delivery in all cases within 30
minutes. The authors say there is little objective evidence to
support the 30minute recommendation.

Contacts:

Derek Tuffnell, Consultant, Maternity Unit, Bradford NHS
Trust, Bradford, UK
Email: derek.tuffnell@bradfordhospitals.nhs.uk

I Z MacKenzie, Clinical Reader in Obstetrics and
Gynaecology, University of Oxford John Radcliffe Hospital,
Oxford, UK

(2) Breast feeding rates in Scottish mothers improve but will fail
to hit Government targets

(Comparison of breastfeeding rates in Scotland in 1990-1
and 1997-8)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7298/1335

In 1994 the Scottish Office set a target that by 2005, half of
all mothers should still be breastfeeding when their babies
are six weeks old.

A paper in this week's BMJ by Tappin and colleagues shows
that breastfeeding at seven days has increased by 6.4 per
cent between 1990-1 to 1997-8. However some of this
increase is explained by a higher proportion of older mothers,
who are more likely to breastfeed.

Whilst saluting this success, the authors note a rapid 10 per
cent fall off in breastfeeding between seven days and six
weeks and warn that by 2005, only 36 per cent of mothers
are likely to be breastfeeding when their babies are six weeks
old rather than the target of 50 per cent.

The authors suggest that a more detailed analysis by
maternity unit, documenting attempts to promote
breastfeeding, such as participation in the Baby Friendly
Hospital Initiative, may allow the effectiveness of health
promotion campaigns to be assessed.

Contact:

David M Tappin, Clinical Senior Lecturer, Royal Hospital for
Sick Children, Glasgow, Scotland
Email: goda11@udcf.gla.ac.uk

(3) Can voting Labour lead to an early demise?

(Analysis of trends in premature mortality by Labour voting in
the 1997 general election)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7298/1336

In this week's BMJ, Dorling, Davey Smith and Shaw
describe how mortality relates to voting patterns in different
areas. Generally, mortality is higher in Labour areas,
reflecting underlying socio-economic and health inequality.

In 1997, the incoming Labour government made the
reduction of health inequality a principal policy aim. The
authors warn that the targets will be difficult to achieve for
two reasons. Firstly, factors influencing inequalities in child
health act from an early age and may not respond rapidly to
social change; secondly the Labour government has not yet
succeeded in reducing social inequality.

The authors use premature death as an indicator of which
groups have fared best under the present government and
find that, in absolute terms, mortality has improved. However
mortality has tended to improve most in areas with the fewest
Labour voters.

In the tenth of the population with the second highest Labour
vote, death rates have actually increased. Relatively, things
have got worse for people in Labour voting areas, mirroring
trends in income inequality which have increased during the
period of the Labour government.

Contacts:

George Davey Smith. Professor of Clinical Epidemiology,
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol,
UK
Email: george.davey-smith@bristol.ac.uk

or Dr Mary Shaw;
Email: Mary.shaw@bristol.ac.uk or Professor Danny Dorling

(4) Probiotic milk may help prevent common childhood
infections

(Effect of long term consumption of probiotic milk on
infections in children attending day care centres: double blind,
randomised trial)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7298/1327

(Do probiotics prevent childhood illnesses?)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7298/1318

Probiotic milk (milk containing bacteria that colonise the
intestine and stimulate antibody production) may slightly
reduce respiratory infections among children attending day
care centres, finds a study in this week's BMJ. These findings
suggest that these bacteria may help prevent common
infections, particularly in high risk children.

Over a seven month winter period, 571 children attending
day care centres in Helsinki, Finland received milk with or
without the probiotic bacteria strain Lactobacillus GG. During
the study, parents recorded any respiratory symptoms (fever,
runny nose, sore throat, cough, chest wheezes, earache)
gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhoea, vomiting, stomach
ache) and absences from the day care centre.

Although there were no significant differences between the
groups in the number of days with respiratory or
gastrointestinal symptoms, the actual number of days with
symptoms was lower in the Lactobacillus group. Children in
the Lactobacillus group also had fewer days of absence
because of illness and required less antibiotic treatment.

Although encouraging, we do not yet have a final answer on
whether probiotics are sufficiently effective in preventing
common childhood diseases that they can be routinely
recommended, writes Professor Christine Wanke of Tufts
University School of Medicine in Boston, USA. However,
she concludes: "the accumulating data suggest that these
organisms may help prevent both respiratory and diarrhoeal
diseases in children at increased risk of such infections, such
as those in day care facilities or living in developing
countries."

Contacts:

[Paper]: Riitta Korpela, Assistant Professor, Foundation for
Nutrition Research, Helsinki, Finland
Email: riitta.korpela@valio.fi

[Editorial]: Christine Wanke, Associate Professor, Tufts
University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Email: christine.wanke@tufts.edu




FOR ACCREDITED JOURNALISTS

Embargoed press releases and articles are available from:

Public Affairs Division
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JR
(contact: pressoffice@bma.org.uk)

and from:

the EurekAlert website, run by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science
(http://www.eurekalert.org)