Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of scoliosis and the risk factors in elementary school students.Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in 954 students in 2015. The instrument involved was a questionnaire on postural habits, socioeconomic conditions, and demographic factors. The anthropometric measurements, including height and weight, a visual inspection of the deformity of the vertebral column, the leveling of shoulders, and the Adam’s test were obtained. The sample was calculated in the expected frequency of 12.3%, acceptable error rate of 2.0% and confidence level of 95.0%. To compare the proportions, the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was applied. The association between scoliosis and risk factors was evaluated by logistic regression, being significant p <0.05.Results: The prevalence of scoliosis was 24.3%, higher in obese patients and students who adopted a sitting position for a long period of time. Obese students showed a 1.8 times higher chance of testing positive Adam’s Forward Bend Test when compared to normal-weight/lean and 2.1 times higher chance compared to overweight students. The sitting position for watching television increases the chance of testing positive Adam’s test in 38.0%, when compared to the lying position. Obesity increases the risk of testing positive Adam’s test in 74.0 and 98.0%, when compared, respectively, to the underweight/normal weight and overweight. Conclusions: There was a high prevalence of scoliosis in students from public elementary schools in Santos. The most influential factors for this deviation of the spine were obesity and the position adopted by students to watch television.

No abstract

No abstract

, were interviewed to assess demographic information, asthma status and education, ICS adherence, disease perception, and outcome expectation. Psychological assessment was performed by using children's depression inventory, screen for child anxiety-related disorders and Rosenberg self-esteem scale. RESULTS: Preliminary results from 106 patients (mean age,1263 years; 70.8% male), most had mild to moderate and controlled asthma (mean Asthma control test score of 2462). Mean ICS adherence was 74.6%627.8%. Of 73 (68.9%) patients, whoever missed ICS use, 58.9% reported intentional non-adherence, of which 95.3% felt the burden outweighed the benefits. Only 12.5% of patients knew that asthma caused airway spasm, and 68.9% realized the difference between controller and reliever. Sixteen (15.8%) and 24 patients (24%) misperceived their control status and severity, respectively. Mean outcome expectation score was 39.568.5 out of 50. Patients who expected good asthma outcome from following the asthma action plan had significantly high (>75%) medication adherence (p50.039). Of the results interpreted, 21% had significant depression, 23% had clinical range for anxiety, and 6% had low self-esteem, but none were related to adherence rate. CONCLUSIONS: Despite good asthma control, the occurrence of depression and anxiety were higher than expected. Patient's asthma outcome expectation may predict better adherence.

No abstract