The management of diabetes in older people is often challenging and poorly researched. The prevalence of cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease and other co-existing comorbidities increase with age and have a significant impact on glycaemic control targets and treatment options. This conference examined current clinical practice, highlighted differences in the management of diabetes in the older person and suggested potential areas of future research.

No abstract

Vision-screening programs are designed to detect common causes of visual impairment and increase the likelihood of early diagnosis and treatment. In the health authority Eastern Health -Newfoundland and Labrador, public health leaders raised a concern about the efficiency and effectiveness of the current non-routine, opportunistic vision screening protocol for school-aged children. An environmental scan of screening practices and programs across Canada was conducted, yielding a wide range of inconsistencies with respect to program type, target population, and screening tools. A significant gap in evidencebased research into universal vision-screening programs for the school-aged population (6+) was also noted. In light of these findings (both in practice and research), we recommend that researchers and public health practitioners across the country evaluate their current practice with respect to school-based vision screening and disseminate their findings through publication. We conclude that evaluation and research into current school-based screening programs (both opportunistic and universal) will provide the evidence needed to guide practice.KEY WORDS: Vision screening; public health surveillance; school health services; strabismus; child health La traduction du résumé se trouve à la fin de l'article.

Choice of insulin in the treatment of diabetes should be based on patient preference, lifestyle, blood glucose profile and risk of hypoglycaemia. Our Drug review focusses on key points and recent advances in the management of diabetes requiring insulin, followed by sources of further information and a review of the prescription data.

Thank you for providing this study. Researching the disparities in both nicotine-and non-nicotine-containing e-cigarette product marketing and enforcement in Canada is a public health issue of great concern. The importance of this research is paramount, as many factors remain unknown on this issue. 1 We would like to comment on the format in which the survey protocol was conducted and the potential implications for validity and bias. The methodology indicates that a standardized protocol was used for conducting the brick-and-mortar retail audits. However, no further explanation was provided on the type, quantity and scope of the interview questions. Additionally, the questionnaire was not provided as a table or figure. Provision of the questionnaire would have been useful for gauging both the reliability and validity of the protocol, which has implications for how well this protocol captured the true marketing of e-cigarettes and how generalizable the results are for future studies.2 The protocol for the online audits only contained three questions, all to be completed online by the retailer. This method may in fact result in under-reporting, since the retailers may be reluctant to share true results for fear of retribution, or may not have ever read and accurately responded to the questions. The interview structure for the brick-and-mortar audits may create a situation which fosters response bias and social desirability issues. 3The interview questionnaire was conducted in person by a trained research assistant. The role of the research assistant was disclosed to the retailer. Disclosure may create a situation where the retailer may feel pressured to under-report the sales of nicotine and non-nicotine products in fear of retribution. 4,5 For the online retailers, anonymity may lead to inaccurate responses and thus skew the results. 6Data collection methods that rely on self-reporting measures increase the potential for social desirability to have an influence on response measures. 4 This has further implications for policy and public health action when the magnitude of the problem may be undermined by such designs. Overall, we feel the questionnaires for both in-store and online retailers could have been 1) provided in the text and 2) standardized to decrease bias and increase validity and reliability. These issues could have been established by choosing an appropriate set of standardized survey questions that were transparent to the reader. We are suggesting that future studies incorporate a valid protocol that fosters replicability. This can be created by designing questionnaires examining the quantity of products sold, the demographic population(s), product accessibility, product promotion and factors that may be more inclusive to both urban and rural centres. Additionally, this questionnaire should be made available within the article to ensure transparency.