Objective:To assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of contraception among the college students. Materials and Methods:A cross sectional study was conducted in the Government College, Gangtok, Sikkim, during the month of April 2009 to evaluate the knowledge, attitude and practice of contraception among 156 students enrolled in the first year bachelor course. Descriptive statistics was used for data analysis.Results: 98% (153/156) of the students had knowledge about family planning and 86% (134/156) of them had heard about contraceptives. Most of them knew about condoms (85%) and contraceptive pills (40%) but knowledge about permanent methods and Cu-T was poor (average 12%). Most students thought contraceptives were to be used to prevent unwanted pregnancy (35%) and for birth spacing (30%). 11% of students had used some form of contraceptive in the past and 7% were currently users. The most commonly used contraceptives were condoms, followed by combined use of OCP and condom. Conclusion:The study highlights the need to motivate the youth for effective and appropriate use of contraceptives when required and arrest the trend towards unwanted pregnancy. (J Turkish-German Gynecol Assoc 2010; 11: 78-81) Key words: Family planning, contraception, knowledge, practice Received: 5 March, 2010 Accepted: 16 April, 2010 Amaç: Kolej öğrencilerinin kontrasepsiyon haklkındaki bilgi, tecrübe ve tavırlarını değerlendirmek. Anahtar kelimeler: Aile planlaması, kontrasepsiyon, bilgi, uygulama Gereç ve

No abstract

Local anesthetics (LAs) are extensively used in clinical practice by both anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologists and are often associated with systemic toxicity. We hypothesize that this awareness is inadequate among medical specialists and entails a risk of misdiagnosis and underreporting of such events. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study to assess the level of understanding of LA use and effective management of systemic toxicity among 200 postgraduate residents of various specialties (with the exception of anesthesiology) in a tertiary care hospital in India from October to December 2013. Among those residents who had used LAs (193/200), 27 and 25 % of responders correctly identified the toxic doses of lidocaine and of lidocaine + adrenaline, respectively. Of the responders, 70 % always performed a negative aspiration of blood before injecting the drug, 27 % sometimes aspirated and the remaining 3 % never aspirated. The majority of the responders (93 %) were unaware of the toxic dose of bupivacaine. Only 70 % of responders believed that LAs could be toxic [95 % confidence interval (CI) 65.5-74.5 %], and 81 % of these correctly identified the signs and symptoms of cardiotoxicity. Only 2 % of responders knew that lipid emulsion is a part of its treatment (95 % CI 0.6-3.4 %). Based on these results, there is a definite need to increase the awareness of detection and treatment of local anesthetic toxicity among all medical practitioners who regularly use LAs.

It might be prudent to monitor the bacteriological quality of well water at the source in addition to resistance profiles of the isolates.