New study determines how many mothers have lost a child by country
Global inequality takes many forms, including who has lost the most children
12 April, 2021
USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
- A first-of-its-kind study examines the number of mothers who have lost a child around the world.
- The number is related to infant mortality rates in a country but is not identical to it.
- The lack of information on the topic leaves a lot of room for future research.
<div><p>Among the best indicators of societal progress over the last few decades has been the remarkable decline in infant and child mortality rates worldwide. In the early sixties, a staggering 1 in 4 children around the world <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality" target="_blank"><u>died</u></a>. Today, that rate has fallen to fewer than 1 in 10. The continued efforts of several organizations will help that number to fall even further.</p><p>However, like many other kinds of progress, the blessings of these advances have been shared unequally. Child mortality rates are much higher in some parts of the world than in others. Additionally, measuring infant mortality by itself doesn't tell the whole story. While conditions are improving, the legacy of high child mortality rates endures.</p><p>In hopes of shedding light on both issues, a first-of-its-kind <a href="https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/4/e004837" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>study</u></a> suggests that mothers in some parts of the world remain astronomically more likely to lose a child than others.</p>
<h2>Bereavement around the world</h2>
<p>An international team of researchers led by Dr. Emily Smith-Greenaway examined data from 170 countries. By combining information on child mortality, maternal life expectancy, the fertility rate, and the proportion of women in the country who have children, among other statistics, the researchers were able to create indices of the number of mothers per thousand who lost a child either before the age of one or five, or ever, for nearly every country in the world.</p></div><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image image-crop-16x9">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjA0MDIyOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzA1NjQ0NX0.I5V4TpnycvcXX-WmfS58N78G_FR4_2X5GuLTSp0Dx8o/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C12%2C0%2C45&height=700" id="57605" width="1245" height="700" data-rm-shortcode-id="6c822d32b18686f0b4787ddc776c0569" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..." spellcheck="false">Cumulative prevalence of infant mortality for mothers age 20–44. Notice the groupings of countries at both the high and low ends of the scale. (scale is per thousand) </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences</small></p><p>The results are quite shocking.</p><p>As seen in the above map, the countries with the highest maternal bereavement rates are clustered in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Hong Kong has the lowest maternal bereavement rate of any measured locale in the world at 2.8 per 1000, while Sierra Leone has the highest at 303.3 per 1000, nearly 1 in 3. A mother in Sierra Leone is 108 times more likely to have lost a child than a mother in Hong Kong.</p><p>This difference is far larger than that of infant mortality alone. There are many possible reasons for this, including factors which directly impact child mortality. Because of the number of factors involved, there are countries where the infant mortality rate remains stubbornly high but where maternal bereavement is rather low, such as the Philippines, and countries where a low mortality rate hides a high bereavement rate, such as Peru. </p><p>The differences between countries continue to exist when age is accounted for. While rates are worse everywhere when looking only at older mothers, the difference between Hong Kong, which remains the best, and Liberia, which becomes the worst, is still a factor of 70.</p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image image-crop-16x9">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjA0MDIyOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NjEwNzM0Nn0.VP5647BFQ_uNHJHTFmttz2xC08aDf8uoqbWxEnJcD7U/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C10%2C0%2C47&height=700" id="90b85" width="1245" height="700" data-rm-shortcode-id="512c61f70b0c7af72b8111f5aae6e734" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..." spellcheck="false">Cumulative prevalence of infant mortality for mothers age 45–49. Notice the similarities with the above map. (scale is per thousand) </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences</small></p><h2>The mental and physical toll of losing a child</h2><p>The authors of the study suggest that these numbers demonstrate the existence of a previously hidden element of global health and the inequality between nations. Their work shows that the maternal cumulative prevalence of infant mortality is not identical to the infant mortality rate, though it is related. They also warn that their estimates are probably conservative due to the likelihood of unreported infant deaths.</p><p>The toll of losing a child on a mother's mental and physical health is <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0893-3200.22.2.203" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>considerable</u></a>. However, much of the research on this topic ignores the possible effects on other family members. The authors note that what information does exist suggests it can be equally as damaging to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01612840.2017.1294220" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>them</u></a>. Additionally, they state that their research focused on national rates but that similar issues may exist within nations where demographic differences in infant mortality and parental bereavement rates exist. They encourage further study into this matter. </p><p>Dr. Smith-Greenaway explained the authors' hopes for the study and the new area of research it <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-04/uosc-hmm040221.php" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>identifies</u></a>:</p><p>"We hope that this work will emphasize that further efforts to lower child deaths will not only improve the quality and length of life for children across the globe, but will also fundamentally improve the lives of parents."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a number of new behaviours into daily routines, like physical distancing, mask-wearing and hand sanitizing. Meanwhile, many old behaviours such as attending events, eating out and seeing friends have been put on hold.
<p>However, one old behaviour that has persisted, and <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pcad.2020.04.005" target="_blank">has arguably been amplified due to COVID-19, is sitting</a> — and it is not surprising to see why. Whether sitting during transportation, work, screen time or even meals, everyday environments and activities are tailored nearly exclusively to prolonged sitting. As such, sedentary behaviours, like sitting, make up the vast majority of our waking day. </p><p>Pre-COVID-19 estimates place the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00925-8" target="_blank">average Canadian adult's sedentary behaviour at around 9.5 hours per day</a>. Current daily sedentary time is likely even higher as a result of stay-at-home orders, limitations on businesses and recreational facilities, and <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200527/dq200527b-eng.htm" target="_blank">elevated health anxieties</a>. </p><h2>Health vs. well-being</h2><p>This is a problem, given that chronic excessive levels of sedentary time have been linked to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105620" target="_blank">greater risk of diabetes, heart disease, mortality and even some cancers</a>. However, for many people, their own judgments and feelings about their quality of life (also known as <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/subjective-well-being" target="_blank">subjective well-being</a>) may be more important and relevant for informing their health decisions and behaviours than potentially developing chronic diseases.</p><p>Subjective well-being encompasses <a href="https://nobaproject.com/modules/happiness-the-science-of-subjective-well-being" target="_blank">an individual's own evaluation of their quality of life</a>. It includes concepts like <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/affect" target="_blank">affect</a> (positive and negative feelings) and <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/life-satisfaction" target="_blank">life satisfaction</a>. Interestingly, these evaluations can conflict with physical health outcomes. For example, a person could have diabetes but still report good subjective well-being, while someone with no physical health conditions may report poor subjective well-being. </p><p>This is important, as it means how an individual feels about their own health may not always align with what their body may demonstrate. That's why evaluating subjective well-being is vital for painting a holistic picture of health. </p><h2>Different contexts of sitting</h2><p>Relatively little research has examined the relationships between sedentary behaviour and subjective well-being. Exploring these relationships is important, as different contexts of sitting — such as socializing versus screen time — may yield different feelings or judgments of subjective well-being, unlike relationships between physical health and sedentary behaviour, which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094201" target="_blank">tend to be more consistent</a>. </p><p>As health psychologists focused on physical activity and sedentary behaviour, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101920" target="_blank">reviewed the scientific literature</a> describing relationships between measures of sedentary behaviours such as physical inactivity and screen time, and subjective well-being as reflected by affect, life satisfaction and overall subjective well-being. </p><p><a href="https://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/2021/03/04/relationships-between-indices-of-sedentary-behavior-and-hedonic-well-being-a-scoping-review/" target="_blank">Our review</a> highlights three main findings. First, sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity and screen time demonstrated weak but statistically significant correlations with subjective well-being. In other words, those who reported sitting more often and spending longer periods with no physical activity reported lower positive affect, higher negative affect and lower life satisfaction than those who sat less and moved more. </p><p>We also found that this relationship was most apparent in studies that compared people who were very sedentary to those who had more active lifestyles. </p><h2>Not all sitting is bad sitting</h2><p>Our second main finding relates to the context of the sedentary behaviour. While many studies examined overall sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity, some studies looked at specific contexts or domains of sitting and its relationship with subjective well-being. These studies revealed that different domains of sedentary behaviour have unique relationships with subjective well-being. </p><p>For example, screen time was consistently and negatively associated with subjective well-being. However, domains like socializing, playing an instrument and reading actually demonstrated positive associations with subjective well-being. These results differ from the traditional health-related sedentary behaviour research, in which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094201" target="_blank">all sedentary behaviour is viewed as harmful to health</a>. </p><p>Our review suggests that some types of sedentary behaviour may be beneficial to quality of life. Rather, not all sitting is the same in terms of subjective well-being. So when people work towards reducing their sitting time, they should consider not just how much to reduce, but what kind to reduce.</p><h2>Less sitting is good for everyone</h2><p>Our third main finding concerns overall sitting and self-perceived levels of sedentary behaviour. Most studies found a weak statistically significant association between higher overall sedentary time and lower subjective well-being. However, in studies where participants were asked to compare their sedentary behaviour to how much they normally sit, those who perceived themselves as more sedentary than usual reported significantly poorer subjective well-being.</p><p>These findings suggest that how much an individual sits overall may not be as important as how much an individual sits compared to their usual level of sitting. This infers that anyone, regardless of how much they normally sit or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1" target="_blank">are physically active</a>, may potentially benefit from sitting less.</p><p>COVID-19 continues to influence daily life and routines. Even as businesses and gyms eventually reopen, and we feel more comfortable gathering with others and eventually stop wearing masks, we will almost certainly continue to sit and sitting will continue to change how we feel. While we may not be able to eliminate all of our sitting, we can all be mindful of both how much we can reduce it and where we can reduce it from to be healthier <em>and</em> feel better.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156289/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1"></p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wuyou-sui-1024154" target="_blank">Wuyou Sui</a>, Postdoctoral fellow, Behavioural Medicine Lab, School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-victoria-1182" target="_blank">University of Victoria</a></em> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/harry-prapavessis-1115239" target="_blank">Harry Prapavessis</a>, Professor, Kinesiology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-university-882" target="_blank">Western University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-much-sitting-is-bad-for-you-but-some-types-are-better-than-others-156289" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Move over Theragun, this DIY massage gun is only $60
Efficiently soothe your muscles with this AI-based DIY massager, on sale for over 70% off.
01 April, 2021
- If working out or working from home is giving you body aches, a massage gun could make a world of a difference.
- This easy-to-use device helps you get a DIY massage wherever and whenever you need it.
- The Actigun Percussion Massager works with any budget, making it an excellent alternative to the popular Theragun.
<p>Your body goes through a lot on a daily basis, so it's no surprise that you experience random aches and pains. You no longer have to power through, as there's a way you can take care of these issues right at home. Introducing the <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/actigun-massage-gun-silver?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=actigun-massage-gun-silver&utm_term=scsf-484137&utm_content=a0x1P000004epbOQAQ&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Actigun Percussion Massager</a>, the smartest percussion massager on the market, which comes in both <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/actigun-massage-gun-silver?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=actigun-massage-gun-silver&utm_term=scsf-484137&utm_content=a0x1P000004epbOQAQ&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">silver</a> and <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/actigun-massage-gun-black?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=actigun-massage-gun-black&utm_term=scsf-484135&utm_content=a0x1P000004epbOQAQ&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">black</a>. </p><p>From increasing your range of motion and relieving pain to speeding up recovery and promoting healthy circulation (and so much more), the Actigun can do it all. It uses an artificial intelligence smart chip that offers a personalized experience and reacts to the condition of your muscles, giving you the exact strength you need.</p><p>Each purchase comes with four massage heads that each target specific muscle groups, resulting in next-level relief. The device also has a high-efficiency thermal ventilation design, which reduces heat to improve your massage quality. </p><p>For extra convenience, the Actigun is wireless and lasts up to 120 minutes on a full charge. Thanks to its brushless silent motor, the gun provides a relaxing massage experience that won't disrupt those around you.</p><div data-react-checksum="-1531962813" data-reactid="1" data-reactroot="" style="position: relative;">
<div data-reactid="3" style="border: 1px solid #000000; padding: 35px 10px 35px 35px; text-decoration: none; display: flex; align-items: center;">
<div data-reactid="4" style="flex: 30%;"><img data-reactid="5" src="https://cdnp3.stackassets.com/c796c2fd180420663f1e732bee3ee95939748091/store/63224734eb31c25c18b8a88aedf254afdf9de115a7ac1be63ec932e739f3/sale_29146_primary_image.jpg"></div>
<div data-reactid="6" style="padding-left: 2.5vw; flex: 70%; justify-content: space-between;">
<div data-reactid="7"><strong data-reactid="8">Actigun: Percussion Massager - $54.99</strong><br data-reactid="9"><br data-reactid="10"><a data-reactid="11" href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/actigun-massage-gun-silver?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral-cta&utm_campaign=actigun-massage-gun-silver&utm_term=scsf-484137&utm_content=a0x1P000004epbOQAQ&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">See Deal</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div><p>Regularly, the <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/actigun-massage-gun-silver?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=actigun-massage-gun-silver&utm_term=scsf-484137&utm_content=a0x1P000004epbOQAQ&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Actigun Percussion Massager</a> goes for $199, but for a limited time, you can slash a significant 72% off on the massager. That brings the final price to just $54.99, making this an excellent alternative to the popular, yet exorbitant Theragun.</p><p><em>Prices subject to change.</em></p><p><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em>W</em><em>hen you buy something through a link in this article or from <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/" target="_self">our shop</a>, Big Think earns a small commission. Thank you for supporting our team's work.</em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Go ahead and consult ‘Dr. Google’ about your medical symptoms
The conventional wisdom may be wrong. Consulting Google for information about medical symptoms might not be as counterproductive as commonly thought, new research suggests.
31 March, 2021
- Credit: bongkarn via Adobe StockConventional wisdom in healthcare holds that searching Google for medical information often leads to anxiety and false diagnoses.
- However, a recent study found that searching Google helped participants more accurately diagnose medical conditions in hypothetical cases.
- The results didn't show massive differences in accuracy, but they suggest searching Google for medical information probably won't harm patients.
<p>When you're feeling sick, or experiencing symptoms of a potential medical condition, do you consult Google?</p><p>Odds are you do: <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/02/12/the-internet-and-health/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Surveys suggest</a> that more than half of Americans use the internet to search for medical information in any given year, while about one-third have used Google for self-diagnosis.</p><p>But some medical professionals wish those numbers were lower. The conventional wisdom in health care is that consulting Google about health concerns doesn't provide reliable information. Taken to the extreme, obsessively searching for information about medical conditions can <em>itself</em> become a medical condition: cyberchondria.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This is such a common issue that there's a running joke between healthcare professionals that if you Google a symptom (any symptom), you'll inevitably be told you have cancer," wrote the Anonymous Nurse for <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/please-stop-using-doctor-google-dangerous#Using-Google-to-search-out-health-topics-isnt-always-a-bad-thing" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Healthline</a>.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://stock.adobe.com/images/shot-of-a-doctor-showing-a-patient-some-information-on-a-digital-tablet/238730671?hide_header=1"></a><a href="https://stock.adobe.com/images/shot-of-a-doctor-showing-a-patient-some-information-on-a-digital-tablet/238730671?hide_header=1"><img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAyODIyNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyODA1MzI4Nn0.IVmgBFEqB7wtPhJoB75bPKHTCBFqArhLD8Ovt3ZKhXg/img.png?width=980" id="6e8f3" width="1575" height="876" data-rm-shortcode-id="4cf5230723e62d8681252eef84e49b4c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt=""></a>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Shot of a doctor showing a patient some information on a digital tablet</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit..."><a href="https://stock.adobe.com/images/shot-of-a-doctor-showing-a-patient-some-information-on-a-digital-tablet/238730671?hide_header=1" target="_blank">Credit: bongkarn via Adobe Stock</a></small></p><div style="display: none;"><img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAyODIyNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyODA1MzI4Nn0.IVmgBFEqB7wtPhJoB75bPKHTCBFqArhLD8Ovt3ZKhXg/img.png?width=980" id="6e8f3" width="1575" height="876" data-rm-shortcode-id="dd32155a037e6c76b92302845c2be146" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Doctor talking with patient"></div>
<p>But new research suggests consulting "Dr. Google" isn't as harmful as commonly thought.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Despite its ubiquitous use, the benefits and harms of an internet search for health information are poorly understood," wrote the authors of a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2777835" target="_blank">new study</a> published in <em>JAMA Network Open</em>. "Previous research has been largely limited to observational studies of internet search behavior and may lack a criterion standard."</p><p>The researchers measured how consulting Google for medical information affected non-physicians' ability to accurately diagnose medical conditions and recommend appropriate triage options. They also explored whether consulting Google increased participants' anxiety.</p><p>For the study, 5,000 participants read a short vignette describing a person who was experiencing a set of medical symptoms. The symptoms listed in the vignettes described common conditions, from viruses to strokes, and the participants were asked to imagine that the person suffering from them was a close family member.</p><p>After reading the vignette, the participants predicted the most likely medical diagnosis, selected a triage option, and reported their own anxiety levels — all without searching the internet for medical information. In the next part of the study, the participants were asked to use the internet to help them select a diagnosis and triage option for the same hypothetical case. Again, they reported their anxiety levels.</p><p>The results showed that using the internet helped the participants select slightly more accurate diagnoses. However, the searches didn't affect their anxiety levels or their ability to select appropriate triage options.</p><p>"Our work suggests that it is likely OK to tell our patients to 'Google it,'" study author David Levine, MD, MPH, of the Division of General Internal Medicine & Primary Care at the <a href="https://www.brighamandwomens.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Brigham and Women's Hospital</a>, said in a <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-03-dr-google-patients-diagnosis.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">press release</a>. "This starts to form the evidence base that there's not a lot of harm in that, and, in fact, there may be some good."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAyODIzNi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDAzNzk0OH0.GnUvq4-eWGskYnc1GWbGylw5-lOdE7CMiW6Mvt_ubMY/img.png?width=980" id="05c4c" width="1305" height="878" data-rm-shortcode-id="7bc76ac931c91b90c4bcbef8491cda17" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">A woman's hand is touching screen on tablet computer iPad pro at night for searching on Google search engine.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit..."><a href="https://stock.adobe.com/images/sankt-petersburg-russia-november-8-2017-a-woman-s-hand-is-touching-screen-on-tablet-computer-ipad-pro-at-night-for-searching-on-google-search-engine-google-is-popular-internet-search-engine/283162947?hide_header=1" target="_blank">Credit: Aleksei via Adobe Stock</a></small></p>
<p>What explains the disconnect between the conventional wisdom and the results? One reason might be that search engines have gotten better at directing people to high-quality medical information.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"For example, several search engines have their own built-in health information curated by major medical centers, and in this study, almost half of the respondents believed such information was the most helpful," the authors wrote, adding that few participants in the study consulted social media or forums for medical information.</p><p>Still, the results don't suggest Google is a replacement for medical professionals. Although searching Google did help participants reach more accurate diagnoses, the differences were small: 54 percent accuracy after searches compared to 49.8 accuracy before searches, which is statistically significant.</p><p>It's also unclear how this accuracy rate would change in a real-life situation, whether it involved a family member or the participants themselves. After all, it's likely that people would experience more anxiety when facing actual medical problems, rather than simply considering a hypothetical situation.</p><p>But it's worth noting that the participants did seem to take the hypothetical situations seriously: They tended to report higher levels of anxiety when the vignettes described more serious conditions, suggesting that they were "internalizing the cases appropriately."</p><p>Down the line, the researchers plan to explore how artificial intelligence might help people find more accurate medical information online.</p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This next study takes a generalized AI algorithm, trained on all of the open-source text of the Internet such as Reddit and Twitter, and then uses that to respond when prompted," Levine said in the press release. "Can AI supplement how people use the Internet? Can it supplement how doctors use the Internet? That's what we're interested in investigating."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Listen to your heart? What this remarkable organ actually does
Awareness of one's own heartbeat has some positive effects.
31 March, 2021
The heart is more than just a pump that pushes blood through our veins. It's also an organ that affects our thinking, feelings, perception and identity.
<p>The human heart is usually the size of one's fist, sometimes a little larger.</p><p>It's made of two parts – the left and the right – that are not directly connected to one another. This is why sometimes they are called the left heart and the right heart.</p><p>The right heart pumps blood to the lungs. Then, oxygen-rich blood travels to the left heart.</p><p>The left heart pumps blood to the entire body, which is why it's a little larger than the right one.</p><p>Then blood comes back to the right heart, which pumps it into the lungs again.</p><p><br/></p>
<p>The heart has its own automatism, meaning that it can work without being managed by the brain. It controls its contractions itself.</p><p>Cardiac contractions are induced by the electrical conduction system of the heart. This system is independent of the nervous system, which can only slow the contractions down or speed them up.</p><p>The cells of the electrical conduction system are capable of generating cyclical electric impulses. Those electrical impulses originate in the wall of the right atrium, in the sinus node of the heart, and from there, they travel to other cells in the system.</p><p>The electrical activity of the heart is measured during an ECG.</p><p>In a very simplified way, the heart's work can be divided into two phases: systole, when it contracts to pump the blood, and diastole, when the heart relaxes and fills with blood.</p><p>The sounds of the typical healthy heart resemble the syllables 'lub' and 'dub'. The first opens the contraction sequence and the latter closes it.</p><p>During contraction, pain is felt less acutely, and our reflexes and perception are numbed. According to the results of experiments carried out by Sarah Garfinkel from Brighton and Sussex Medical School, tiny stimuli (such as pinpricks) could go unnoticed.</p>
<p>Awareness of one's own heartbeat has some positive effects. People who can feel their own heartbeat are more intuitive and better at estimating risks accurately. Research by the British scientists Narayanan Kandasamy, Sarah Garfinkel and Lionel Page suggests that such people make better stockbrokers.</p><p>Meanwhile, people who cannot clearly feel their heartbeat are less apt at reading the emotions of others, following research by Oxford neurobiologist Geoff Bird.</p><p>The rhythm of the heart's systole and diastole cycle leaves its mark on our cerebral activity, the so-called heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP) – the brain's electrical activity that is synchronized with our heartbeat.</p><p>The stronger the HEP, the clearer we can register our heartbeat.</p><p>Various experiments have shown that people with strong HEP are better at noticing visual details. According to the results of Catherine Tallon-Baudry's experiments at the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, these people are also more consistent and confident in their decision making.</p><p>Some scientists – including Olaf Blanke and Hyeongdong Park from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne – claim that the HEP phenomenon is key to our identity building. They even say that the rhythm of our heartbeat gives us a sense of the continuity of the self.</p><p>It's also worth mentioning that HEP can be improved with the right training.</p><p>The human heart beats an average of 70 times per minute. Each time, it expels about 72 millilitres of blood. This makes for about 100,000 heartbeats and over 7200 litres of blood pushed through the heart each day.</p><p>During the average 78 years of the human lifespan, the heart beats 2.8 billion times, pumping 200 million litres of blood, an amount equal to 60 Olympic-sized swimming pools.</p>
<p>During physical exertion, the heartbeat rate is raised, but regular exercise lowers our blood pressure because the heart – like any other muscle – can be strengthened and made more efficient.</p><p>Sometimes it is claimed that every person has a finite number of heartbeats to use up in their lifetime. This is not true – the equation is not so simple. But it is true that those with a slower heartbeat tend to live longer.</p><p>As for animals, the ones with a slower pulse (such as whales – 20 heartbeats per minute) tend to live longer than those with fast-beating hearts (such as hamsters – 450 beats per minute).</p><p><em>Translated from <a href="https://przekroj.pl/nauka/glos-serca-lukasz-kaniewski" target="_blank">the Polish</a> by Aga Zano</em></p><p><em>Reprinted with permission of <a target="_blank" href="https://przekroj.pl/en/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Przekrój</a>. Read the <a href="https://przekroj.pl/en/science/the-voice-of-the-heart-lukasz-kaniewski" target="_blank">original article</a>. </em></p>
<p class=""><br/></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
