Scientists develop robust blood test that can detect liver damage in minutes

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.

Panaji, May 11: Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, most of the people are more concerned about the health of their near and dear ones than their own well-being, says a study conducted by a leading business school in Goa.

People are now more conscious about any bodily changes, and even mild cold, cough and sneezing, it says.

The study, on public's reaction towards COVID-19 outbreak by gauging their psychological response in terms of anxiety and their coping behaviour, was conducted by the Goa Institute of Management's Dr Divya Singhal and Prof Padhmanabhan Vijayaraghavan.

It took into account inputs from 231 respondents residing in various parts of the country.

"Nearly 82.25 per cent of the respondents were more worried about the health of their loved ones than their own well-being," Singhal said.

"Majority of the respondents have become conscious of any bodily changes, sensations, a mild cold, cough, sneezing and experience concern, and attribute those changes to the symptoms of COVID-19," she said.

Besides, more than 50 per cent of the respondents said their social media usage has gone up as well as their time spent on watching movies and shows through online medium, the official said.

The respondents agreed that their technology usage to connect with friends and relatives has gone up, she said.

The study also indicated that a large group of respondents found it "depressing" to read forwarded messages on the deadly disease.

"An overwhelming majority of the respondentsagreed that they discourage unverified forwarded messages about COVID-19 on social media," says the study.

It also found that 41 per centof the respondents were not doing any physical activity, like yoga, during the lockown period, while another 19 per cent were not sure about engaging themselves in physical activities.

Besides, 57 per cent of the respondents were not engaged in any mind-calming practices like meditation, and 18 per cent were not sure about taking up meditative practices, the study said.

The respondents included 145 men and 86 women, aged 18 and above, with nearly 60 per cent of them residing in non- metro cities and rest from metros.

About 47.62 per cent of the respondents were employed in private or government sectors, and the remaining included students, retired persons and homemakers.

Taking multiple courses of antibiotics within a short span of time may do people more harm than good, suggests new research which discovered an association between the number of prescriptions for antibiotics and a higher risk of hospital admissions.

Patients who have had 9 or more antibiotic prescriptions for common infections in the previous three years are 2.26 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection in three or more months, said the researchers.

Patients who had two antibiotic prescriptions were 1.23 times more likely, patients who had three to four prescriptions 1.33 times more likely and patients who had five to eight 1.77 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection.

"We don't know why this is, but overuse of antibiotics might kill the good bacteria in the gut (microbiota) and make us more susceptible to infections, for example," said Professor Tjeerd van Staa from the University of Manchester in Britain.

The study, published in the journal BMC Medicine, is based on the data of two million patients in England and Wales.

The patient records, from 2000 to 2016, covered common infections such as upper respiratory tract, urinary tract, ear and chest infections and excluded long term conditions such as cystic fibrosis and chronic lung disease.

The risks of going to hospital with another infection were related to the number of the antibiotic prescriptions in the previous three years.

A course is defined by the team as being given over a period of one or two weeks.

"GPs (general physicians) care about their patients, and over recent years have worked hard to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics,""Staa said.

"But it is clear GPs do not have the tools to prescribe antibiotics effectively for common infections, especially when patients already have previously used antibiotics.

"They may prescribe numerous courses of antibiotics over several years, which according to our study increases the risk of a more serious infection. That in turn, we show, is linked to hospital admissions," Staa added.

It not clear why hospital admissions are linked to higher prescriptions and research is needed to show what or if any biological factors exist, said the research team.

"Our hope is that, however, a tool we are working for GPs, based on patient history, will be able to calculate the risks associated with taking multiple courses of antibiotics," said Francine Jury from the University of Manchester.