Introduction: Improving flu vaccination rates in the general population is an important and effective strategy toward reducing morbidity, mortality, and the cost of seasonal influenza. In order to optimize immunization strategies, factors associated with decreased vaccination rates need to be explored. The literature suggests that there is a gender difference in the rate of influenza vaccination but is limited to population-based survey studies and also is inconsistent as to which gender has a higher rate of vaccination. The purpose of this study was to evaluate for a gender-based difference in the rate of influenza vaccination among patients who presented for an annual physical examination during the 2018 to 2019 influenza season. Methods: In this multi-site, retrospective chart review, a total of 1193 patients (608 female and 585 male) who underwent an annual physical examination in April of 2019 were included. Baseline medical information was collected, as well as demographic characteristics and influenza vaccination status. The proportion of patients who underwent influenza vaccination was compared between males and females using multivariable logistic regression models; odds ratios (ORs) were estimated. Results: The likelihood of influenza vaccination was significantly higher in females (62.8%) compared to males (53.2%) in both unadjusted analysis (OR = 1.49, P < .001) and in multivariable analysis adjusting for the potential confounding influences of clinic location, BMI, insurance type, and occupation (OR = 1.42, P = .005). Interestingly, a higher influenza vaccination rate for females compared to males was observed in patients age<60 years (OR = 1.70, P = .025) and between ages 60 and 75 (OR = 1.66, P = .009), but not for patients older than 75 years (OR = 1.12, P = .66). Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the rate of influenza vaccination is higher for females than for males who presented for an annual preventive physical exam and who are younger than 75 years old.
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, despite being largely preventable and treatable. Improving overall screening rates among both men and women is considered an important and effective strategy toward reducing morbidity and mortality from CRC. In order to optimize screening strategies, factors associated with decreased compliance need to be understood. This study aimed to compare initial CRC screening rates between males and females in a population of patients who presented for an annual physical examination. Methods: A retrospective chart review study of 380 patients designed to compare rates of initial CRC screening between males and females was conducted. Patients who were seen at our institution for an annual physical examination and were between 51 and 60 years of age were included. Results: There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of initial colon cancer screening between females (83.0%) and males (80.9%) in either unadjusted analysis (odds ratio = 1.16, P = .59) or in multivariable analysis adjusting for potential confounding variables (odds ratio = 1.16, P = .61). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the rate of initial CRC screening between males and females who presented for an annual physical examination. This suggests that designing interventions to improve screening specific to gender may not be needed in a population of patients who attend routine preventive health examinations. Further study is needed in the general population to examine for gender-based differences in initial CRC screening among patients who do not regularly follow up for preventive examinations.
Context: Sleep plays a vital role in cognitive and physical performance. Teenage athletes (ages 13-19 years) are considered especially at risk for disordered sleep and associated negative cognitive, physical, and psychosomatic effects. However, there is a paucity of evidence-based recommendations to promote sleep quality and quantity in athletes who fall within this age range. We performed a review of the literature to reveal evidence-based findings and recommendations to help sports instructors, athletic trainers, physical therapists, physicians, and other team members caring for young athletes provide guidance on sleep optimization for peak sports performance and injury risk reduction. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched on May 11, 2016, and then again on September 1, 2020, for relevant articles published to date. Study Design: Narrative review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Results: Few studies exist on the effects disordered sleep may have on teenage athletes. By optimizing sleep patterns in young athletes during training and competitions, physical and mental performance, and overall well-being, may be optimized. Adequate sleep has been shown to improve the performance of athletes, although further studies are needed. Conclusion: Twenty-five percent of total sleep time should be deep sleep, with a recommended sleep time of 8 to 9 hours for most young athletes. Screen and television use during athletes’ bedtime should be minimized to improve sleep quality and quantity. For young athletes who travel, jet lag can be minimized by allowing 1 day per time zone crossed for adjustment, limiting caffeine intake, planning meals and onboard sleeping to coincide with destination schedules, timing arrivals in the morning whenever possible, and using noise-canceling headphones and eyeshades. Strength-of-Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): B.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.