The role of mindfulness, mindful eating and a newer concept of intuitive eating in modulating eating habits is an area of increasing interest. In this structured literature review, a summary of the current evidence is presented, together with details of interventions undertaken and the tools to measure outcomes. It is broad in scope given the emerging evidence base in this area. The review yielded sixty-eight publications: twenty-three interventions in obese/overweight populations; twenty-nine interventions in normal-weight populations; sixteen observational studies, three of which were carried out in overweight/obese populations. Mindfulness-based approaches appear most effective in addressing binge eating, emotional eating and eating in response to external cues. There is a lack of compelling evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness and mindful eating in weight management. Mindfulness-based approaches may prevent weight gain. Reduced food intake was seen in some of the studies in overweight and obese populations, but this was less apparent in the studies in normal-weight populations. The evidence base for intuitive eating is limited to date and further research is needed to examine its potential in altering eating behaviours. Mindfulness appears to work by an increased awareness of internal, rather than external, cues to eat. Mindfulness and mindful eating have the potential to address problematic eating behaviours and the challenges many face with controlling their food intake. Encouraging a mindful eating approach would seem to be a positive message to be included in general weight management advice to the public.

In this article, we explore the relationship between rapid automatized naming (RAN) and other cognitive processes among below-average, average, and above-average readers and spellers. Nonsense word reading, phonological awareness, RAN, automaticity of balance, speech perception, and verbal short-term and working memory were measured. Factor analysis revealed a 3-component structure. The first component included phonological processing tasks, RAN, and motor balance. The second component included verbal short-term and working memory tasks. Speech perception loaded strongly as a third component, associated negatively with RAN. The phonological processing tests correlated most strongly with reading ability and uniquely discriminated average from below- and above-average readers in terms of word reading, reading comprehension, and spelling. On word reading, comprehension, and spelling, RAN discriminated only the below-average group from the average performers. Verbal memory, as assessed by word list recall, additionally discriminated the below-average group from the average group on spelling performance. Motor balance and speech perception did not discriminate average from above- or below-average performers. In regression analyses, phonological processing measures predicted word reading and comprehension, and both phonological processing and RAN predicted spelling.

No abstract

No abstract

The reliability and validity of the Parent's Observations of Social Interactions (POSI), a new, seven‐item screening instrument for autism spectrum disorders (ASD), is examined in two substudies. In Study 1, parents of 217 children (18–48 months) evaluated at a developmental clinic completed intake questionnaires that included the POSI and the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M‐CHAT) checklist. POSI and M‐CHAT scores were compared to clinical evaluation results to assess reliability and validity. In Study 2, parents of 232 children (16–36 months) from both primary care and subspecialty settings completed the POSI, the M‐CHAT, and a report of their child's diagnoses. POSI and M‐CHAT scores were compared to reported diagnoses to assess reliability and validity. In both studies, the POSI demonstrated adequate internal reliability (Cronbach α = 0.83 and 0.86, respectively). In Study 1, POSI sensitivity (89%) was higher than that for the M‐CHAT (71%; p < .05); specificities were not significantly different (POSI: 54%, M‐CHAT: 62%). In Study 2, sensitivity (83%) compared favorably to that for the M‐CHAT (50%), although specificity was lower (75 vs. 84%). Despite its brevity, the POSI demonstrated good internal reliability and comparable sensitivity/specificity to the M‐CHAT checklist in two independent populations. If results are reproduced in larger, more diverse samples, the POSI may provide an efficient method for ASD screening in young children.

To clarify the nature of cognitive deficits experienced by poor readers, 9-10-yr.-old poor readers were matched against 9 chronological age and 9 younger reading age-matched controls screened and selected from regular classrooms. Poor readers performed significantly more poorly than chronological age-matched peers on digit naming speed, spoonerisms, and nonsense word reading. Poor readers were also significantly poorer than reading age-matched controls on nonword reading but were significantly better than reading age-matched controls on postural stability. Analyses of effect sizes were consistent with these findings, showing strong effects for digit naming speed, spoonerisms, and nonword reading. However, effect size analysis also suggested that poor readers experienced moderate difficulties with balance automatisation but did not show verbal speech perception deficits relative to either control

BackgroundDespite effective treatments, asthma outcomes remain suboptimal. Interest exists in complementary therapies, particularly in herbal remedies for asthma treatment, currently with inconclusive evidence of efficacy. The encapsulated botanical mixture AKL1 has anecdotal evidence of effectiveness in asthma.MethodsWe performed a randomised controlled cross over study comparing the effectiveness of AKL1 with indistinguishable placebo as add-on therapy in patients uncontrolled on standard asthma treatment. Thirty two adult asthmatics completed a 36 week trial consisting of a 4 week single blind run in period, during which placebo was added to usual treatment, a 12 week double blind active phase in which subjects received AKL1 or placebo, a single blind 8 week washout period receiving placebo and a final 12 week double blind cross-over active treatment phase. Daily diaries were kept of peak expiratory flow and symptoms, and spirometry, validated symptom and health status questionnaire scores and adverse events were monitored at study visits. Paired T tests were used to compare the effects of placebo and AKL1 on outcomes. Changes in outcome measures over treatment phases are presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of means.ResultsNo significant differences in lung function (active-placebo) were found (Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second: mean difference [95% CI] = 0.01 [-0.12 to 0.14] L, p = 0.9. Peak Expiratory Flow: -4.08 [-35.03 to 26.89]. L/min, p = 0.8).Trends to clinical improvements favouring active treatment were however consistently seen in the patient-centered outcomes: Asthma Control Questionnaire mean difference (active – placebo) [95% CI] = -0.35 [-0.78 to 0.07], p = 0.10, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire mean difference 0.42 [-0.08 to 0.93], p = 0.09, Leicester Cough Questionnaire mean difference 0.49, [-0.18 to 1.16], p = 0.15.Nine exacerbations occurred during placebo treatment and five whilst on AKL1. No significant adverse events were noted.ConclusionAKL1 treatment was well tolerated. No significant improvements in lung function, symptoms, or quality of life were seen, although consistent trends were seen to improvements in patient-centered outcomes. Further studies are needed.

Complementary therapies attract considerable media attention and previous surveys of members of an asthma patient organisation suggested that their use by those with asthma was commonplace. This report concerns a study of a stratified cross section of the asthma population designed to give a more representative insight into current usage of complementary therapies. A sift questionnaire was used to identify those with asthma and 785 of those so identified undertook a semi-structured face-to-face interview. Only 6% of the study population were current users of complementary therapies with use being more common amongst those who expressed most concern regarding their current medication. Low use of complementary therapies may well reflect satisfaction with current management and suggests that previous surveys may have been unrepresentative of a more balanced population of those with asthma.