Moms smoking tied to psychiatric meds in kids

LogicSoDeveloped

LogicSoDeveloped

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
3,427
Location
The Mountains
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Children whose mothers smoked while pregnant were more likely to end up on medications such as antidepressants, stimulants and drugs for addiction, according to a study from Finland that hints at smoking's affect on a baby's developing brain.
While the findings don't prove that cigarette smoking during pregnancy causes changes in children's brains or behavior, they offer one more piece of evidence that should encourage women not to smoke while pregnant, the researchers wrote in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
"The exposure was significantly associated with the risk for all medication use and for both single- and multiple-drug consumption even after adjustment (e.g. mothers' severe psychiatric illnesses," wrote lead researcher Mikael Ekblad, at the Department of Pediatrics at Turku University Hospital.
"These findings show that exposure to smoking during pregnancy is linked to both mild and severe psychiatric morbidity."
Ekblad and his colleagues used Finnish data for 175,000 children born in the country between 1987 and 1989. At that time, midwives had asked all new mothers if they smoked during pregnancy.
The researchers then matched those birth records to a nationwide database of prescription drugs covered by insurance between 1994 and 2007 -- when the children were between five and 20 years old.
One in 11 children was prescribed a psychiatric medication at some point during that period, including anti-anxiety drugs, antipsychotics, antidepressants, stimulants and drugs for addiction.
Of children and teens whose mothers didn't smoke during pregnancy, 8 percent were on at least one of those drugs during the study period. That compared to 11 percent of those whose mothers smoked fewer than 10 cigarettes per day, and close to 14 percent whose mothers had lit up more than 10 times a day.
The link remained when researchers left out babies who were born early or very small, which are other factors that could affect future mental health.
It also stuck when they looked at each class of drugs on its own, and was strongest for stimulant drugs that target attention problems and hyperactivity, and drugs for addiction.
The study is "entirely consistent with a large and still-growing research literature on the effects of prenatal and secondhand smoke exposure on the mental ealth of children," said Michael Weitzman, who studies that topic at New York University Medical Center and was not involved in the study.
"I find it very interesting and very important."
Click to expand...

Source and more at: http://news.yahoo.com/moms-smoking-tied-psychiatric-meds-kids-015713589.html
 
"entirely consistent with a large and still-growing research literature on the effects of prenatal and secondhand smoke exposure on the mental ealth of children
Click to expand...

This is obviously about prenatal exposure, but it has nothing to do with second hand smoke. Why must the anti-smoking campaign be so disingenuous and misleading if they are so certain the facts will speak for themselves and reveal the dangers of tobacco?
 
^ Actually, there is nothing disingenuous in that statement.
This evidence is consistent with the results of other research on "prenatal and secondhand" smoke, just like it says.
Sounds like you are trying to cling to straws with your stance.
Feeling threatened?
Possibly a smoker?
 
This evidence is consistent with the results of other research on "prenatal and secondhand" smoke, just like it says.
Click to expand...

But they didn't cite those second hand smoke related studies, I'm not saying they don't exist, it's just that they're expanding the scope of the article without bringing in more hard facts to support it. The article would have stood fine talking about the results of the one study, or if you wanted to talk about the broader findings on tobacco's effects on health bring in more studies. I just think this is sloppy journalism.
 
^ I disagree. I think that the trend in results is very clear, and that to mention it is common sense.
If you want more hard facts, they are certainly available.
To mention that these results make sense, given other results, makes perfect sense to me.
(After all, if they did not mesh well with other results, we would want to know that, too.)
 
Never Knows Best said:
But they didn't cite those second hand smoke related studies, I'm not saying they don't exist, it's just that they're expanding the scope of the article without bringing in more hard facts to support it. The article would have stood fine talking about the results of the one study, or if you wanted to talk about the broader findings on tobacco's effects on health bring in more studies. I just think this is sloppy journalism.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever seen links to the actual studies from basic news articles that are links on sites like Yahoo. You should look it up if you're that interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top