MULTIFILE
Two key air pollutants that affect asthma are ozone and particle pollution. Studies show a direct relationship between the number of deaths and hospitalizations for asthma and increases of particulate matter in the air, including dust, soot, fly ash, diesel exhaust particles, smoke, and sulfate aerosols. Cars are found to be a primary contributor to this problem. However, patient awareness of the link is limited. This chapter begins with a general discussion of vehicular dependency or ‘car culture’, and then focuses on the discussion of the effects of air pollution on asthma in the Netherlands. I argue that international organizations and patient organizations have not tended to put pressure on air-control, pollution-control or environmental standards agencies, or the actual polluters. While changes in air quality and the release of greenhouse gases are tied to practices like the massive corporate support for the ongoing use of motor vehicles and the increased prominence of ‘car culture’ globally, patient organizations seem more focused on treating the symptoms rather than addressing the ultimate causes of the disease. Consequently, I argue that to fully address the issue of asthma the international health organizations as well as national health ministries, patient organizations, and the general public must recognize the direct link between vehicular dependency and asthma. The chapter concludes with a recommendation for raising environmental health awareness by explicitly linking the vehicular dependency to the state of poor respiratory health. Strategic policy in the Netherlands then should explicitly link the present pattern of auto mobility to public health. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118786949 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Rationale: In 2016, a completely revised second version of the ‘Handbook Nutrition in Cancer’ (HNC, in Dutch) by the Dutch Dietitians Oncology Group (DDOG) was published. In this project, the DDOG evaluated similarities and potential discrepancies between DDOG recommendations and the ESPEN guidelines for the identification, prevention and treatment of reversible elements of malnutrition during and after cancer treatment.Methods: The recommendations of the DDOG, as published in the HCN, were systematically compared with the ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. guidelines. However, DDOG recommendations are more detailed, comprehensive, and practical.The DDOG and the ESPEN guidelines differ in that the DDOG 1) recommends the comprehensive PG-SGA and PG-SGA Short Form for screening and nutritional assessment; 2) recommends to start artificial nutrition at an earlier stage; 3) does not recommend increasing the ratio of energy from fat/energy from carbohydrates in weight-losing cancer patients with insulin resistance; 4) includes a less conservative recommendation on increasing energy intake for prevention of refeeding syndrome; and 5) supports a longer period of corticosteroid use to increase appetite (4-8 weeks vs ESPEN 1-3 weeks).AdditionallyResults: Overall, the DDOG recommendations are in line with the ESPEN , the DDOG does not include a specific advice for parenteral nutrition composition during intensive chemotherapy, and includes the advice to avoid fatty fish/fish oil 24 hours before and after specific chemotherapy treatment.Both guidelines recommend nutritional care to be accompanied by exercise training.Conclusion: The DDOG and ESPEN recommendations are generally in line with each other, but the DDOG recommendations are more specific and practical. DDOG and ESPEN are complementary to each other.
LINK