The coding procedure followed that of Manstead & McCulloch (1981). In each advert the one or two adults who played the most central role(s) were selected for subsequent coding. Each of these 228 central figures was independently coded by two coders for sex, mode of presentation, credibility basis, role, argument, product type and product price.Mode of presentation. Central figures were categorized into one of three modes of presentation: voice (disembodied voice-over), visual (visual portrayal, no speaking part), visualhoice (visual portrayal and a speaking part).Credibility basis. Central figures who were depicted primarily as users of the advertised product were categorized as wer. Those depicted primarily as sources of information about the product were categorized as authority. Central figures who fell into neither category were categorized as other.Role. Central figures were categorized according to the role played, namely, interviewerlnarrator, worker, professions!, celebrity, home-maker, parent, partner (spouse or girlfriendlboyfriend) or other. Argument. The arguments,used by the central figures in favour of the product were categorized as either scientific (contains technical information or factual evidence), information (provides descriptive information), opinion (offers a personal judgement about the product), or none. Product type. The advertised product was classified into one of three types: personal (if presented as a product for personal use, such as clothing, perfume, personal hygiene products), domestic (if presented for family or home use, such as household products or food), non-domestic (such as entertainment products, cars, sports, travel or electronic goods).Product price. The product associated with each central figure was coded as cheap (under f20). expensive (over f 100) or orher (uncodable or unclearhntermediate price).

For children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the impact of obesity at diagnosis and weight change during induction on survival is uncertain. Objectives of this study were to describe the relationship between obesity and weight change during induction and event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Participants were children 2-18 years old with ALL diagnosed between January 2001 and September 2006. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were conducted. In total 238 children were included; 21 (8.8%) were obese at diagnosis. Obese patients, compared with non-obese patients, had lower 5-year EFS (62.2±12.1% vs. 83.6±2.6%; p =0.02) and OS (80.7±8.7% vs. 92.9±1.9%; p =0.005). In univariate analysis, weight gain during induction was associated with better EFS (hazard ratio [HR] =0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.97; p =0.009) and OS (HR =0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.90; p <0.0001). Obese pediatric patients with ALL have inferior survival while increased weight during induction may be associated with better survival. Causes of weight loss during induction should be aggressively managed.

No abstract

ObjectivesTaste changes are common among paediatric patients receiving cancer treatments although specific descriptions and associations are uncertain. Primary objective was to describe the number of paediatric patients receiving cancer therapies who experienced taste changes, its impact on food intake and enjoyment of eating, and coping strategies.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study that included English-speaking paediatric patients aged 4–18 years with a diagnosis of cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients receiving active treatment. Using a structured interview, we asked participants about their experience with taste changes, impacts and coping strategies. The respondent was the paediatric patient.ResultsWe enrolled 108 patients; median age was 11 years (IQR 8–15). The taste changes reported yesterday or today were food tasting bland (34%), bad (31%), different (27%), bitter (25%), extreme (19%), metallic (15%) or sour (12%). Taste changes were associated with decreased food intake (31%) and decreased enjoyment in eating (25%) yesterday or today. The most common coping strategies were eating food they liked (42%), eating strong-tasting food (39%), drinking liquids (35%), brushing teeth (31%) and sucking on candy (25%). Factors significantly associated with food tasting bad were as follows: older age (p=0.003), shorter time since cancer diagnosis (p=0.027), nausea and vomiting (p=0.008) and mucositis (p=0.009).ConclusionsAmong paediatric patients receiving cancer treatments, taste changes were common and were associated with decreased food intake and enjoyment in eating. Common coping strategies were described. Reducing nausea, vomiting and mucositis may improve taste changes.

No abstract