No abstract

Hand-held phone use is prohibited by French law to prevent any motor interference with driving. If free-hands kit remains tolerated, its true impact (cognitive interference) is not already clearly determined. This experiment was aimed to study the effect of three communication tasks on driver's behavior: listening to the radio, discussing with a passenger and holding a hands-free phone conversation. Performance was assessed through reaction time (RT) to visual stimuli when driving on a private closed circuit. Drivers were requested to leave their foot from the accelerator pedal when orange lights, placed on the dashboard, switched on. This stimulus was triggered while subjects performed both driving and one of the three additional tasks. Skin resistance level (SRL) and instantaneous heart rate (IHR) were continuously recorded as indices of arousal. Rest and driving were taken as reference. Phoning while driving elicited the highest RT. SRL showed 3 levels of arousal, from the lowest to the highest: rest, driving and the dual task condition (driving + communication). Thus, arousal remained constant whatever the additional task although IHR showed that arousal was higher when phoning than when listening to the radio. Thus, managing two tasks simultanously elicited an increase in subjects' arousal whereas RT increased selectively as a function of the secondary task requirements.

No abstract

Background Patients frequently visit their primary care physician (PCP) for digestive symptoms. We aimed to compile a list of non-pharmacological home remedies (NPHRs) that patients frequently use and find effective so that PCPs can then propose them to their patients with various digestive symptoms. Methods In this questionnaire-based survey on the use and perceived effectiveness of NPHRs for digestive symptoms, 50 randomly selected Swiss or French PCPs consecutively recruited 20–25 patients between March 2020 and July 2021. These patients were given a list of 53 NPHRs previously developed by our research team. They were asked whether they used them (Y/N) and whether they considered them to be ineffective, not very effective, moderately effective, or very effective in treating abdominal pain (14 NPHRs), bloating (2), constipation (5), diarrhoea (10), digestion trouble (12), nausea/vomiting (2) and stomach pain (8). We considered NPHRs to be perceived as effective if patients reported that they were moderately or very effective. Results A total of 1,012 patients agreed to participate in the study (participation rate = 84.5%, median age = 52 years, women = 61%). The two most frequently used NPHRs were rice cooking water for diarrhoea (29% of patients) and prunes for constipation (22%). The perceived effectiveness of the NPHRs ranged from 82% (fennel infusions for abdominal pain) to 95% (bicarbonate for stomach pain). Conclusion Our data could be useful to PCPs interested in proposing NPHRs to their patients suffering from digestive disorders, and more generally to all PCPs interested in learning more about patients’ use of NPHRs in primary care.