Search

Background: Signs of feeding intolerance, such as gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, are frequently observed in otherwise healthy formula-fed infants in the first months of life. The primary objective of this observational study was to examine GI tolerance in formula-fed infants (FFI) vs. breastfed infants (BFI) in a real-world setting with a secondary objective being the comparison of infants fed formula with pre- and/or probiotics (FFI_PP) and those fed formula without any pre- and/or probiotics (FFI_noPP) as well as BFI. Methods: A six-country, cross-sectional study in full-term exclusively/predominantly FFI (n = 2036) and BFI (n = 760) aged 6–16 weeks was conducted using the validated Infant Gastrointestinal Symptom Questionnaire (IGSQ) and a Feeding Practice and Gut Comfort Questionnaire. Results: The IGSQ composite score in FFI was non-inferior compared to BFI (mean difference [95%CI]: 0.17 [-0.34, 0.67]; non-inferiority p-value < 0.0001) and scores for BFI and FFI were below the threshold of 23, indicating no GI discomfort. Adjusted mean IGSQ scores ± SE were similar in FFI_PP (22.1 ± 0.2) and BFI (22.3 ± 0.3) while FFI_noPP (23.4 ± 0.3) was significantly higher and above 23 indicating some GI discomfort (mean differences [95%CI] FFI_noPP minus FFI_PP and FFI_noPP minus BFI were 1.28 [0.57, 1.98] and 1.09 [0.38, 1.80], respectively; both p < 0.01). Hard stools and difficulty in passing stool were more common in FFI compared to BFI (p < 0.01) but were less common in FFI_PP compared to FFI_noPP (p < 0.01). FFI_PP showed significantly less crying than FFI_noPP and was similar to BFI. Significantly fewer physician-confirmed colic episodes (Rome IV criteria) were reported in FFI_PP compared with FFI_noPP or BFI. Conclusions: In this real-world observational study, FFI had non-inferior overall GI tolerance compared to BFI. Within FFI, infants receiving formulas with pre- and/or probiotics had a better GI tolerance, improved stooling and less infantile colic compared to those receiving formula without any pre- and/or probiotics and were more similar to BFI. Trial registration: NCT03703583, 12/10/2018 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03703583). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aimed to determine the views and practices of healthcare providers and barriers they encountered when implementing the national health screening program for men in a public primary care setting in Malaysia. Methods: An online survey was conducted among healthcare providers across public health clinics in Malaysia. All family medicine specialists, medical officers, nurses and assistant medical officers involved in the screening program for adult men were invited to answer a 51-item questionnaire via email or WhatsApp. The questionnaire comprised five sections: participants' socio-demographic information, current screening practices, barriers and facilitators to using the screening tool, and views on the content and format of the screening tool. Results: A total of 231 healthcare providers from 129 health clinics participated in this survey. Among them, 37.44% perceived the implementation of the screening program as a "top-down decision." Although 37.44% found the screening tool for adult men "useful," some felt that it was "time consuming" to fill out (38.2%) and "lengthy" (28.3%). In addition, 'adult men refuse to answer' (24.1%) was cited as the most common patient-related barrier. Conclusions: This study provided useful insights into the challenges encountered by the public healthcare providers when implementing a national screening program for men. The screening tool for adult men should be revised to make it more user-friendly. Further studies should explore the reasons why men were reluctant to participate in health screenings, thus enhancing the implementation of screening programs in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]