Daycare lowers leukemia risk by 30%

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Daycare lowers leukemia risk by 30%
43
Wed, 04-30-2008 - 11:15pm

Someone on another board posted this. Does anyone have thoughts on it? Thirty percent is quite a significant difference!

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e6217e73-51f1-4116-bb6b-d9eae1525dea&k=28669&p=1

Renaissance Siggy







Photobucket









iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Sat, 05-03-2008 - 1:21pm

<>

Me either. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't just one study, though. Researchers analyzed the results of 14 studies, and the result was that they noticed that across those 14 studies, children who attended daycare or playgroups in the first few years were 30% less likely to be subsequently diagnosed with childhood leukemia than isolated children. I understand being cautious about studies you read in the news, and that the media is notorious for sensationalizing these things (my parents didn't speak to me in Spanish as a child because of a stupid oversimplified news report), but it seems to me that what we have here is a pretty strong correlation between early social contact and susceptibility to this disease - strong enough to warrant the article's title. The meta-analysis showed that putting kids in daycare DID reduce their risk.







Photobucket









iVillage Member
Registered: 03-12-2005
Sat, 05-03-2008 - 2:32pm

I would be intererested in looking at the actual studies. I wonder how effectively they could isolate that one variable to draw the conclusion? The problem with studies like these is that it is extremely difficult to isolate variables. If they don't analyze every possible connection, the conclusion isn't completely accurate.When they say isolated, I wonder exactly how they define that. It has also been noted that daycare isn't the only way to prime the immune system of young children, so saying daycare is the definitive connection seems a little inaccurate to me. If I were to chose to put a young infant into fulltime dc that could sacrifice the breastfeeding relationship. Breastfeeding can be very important in a child's health so I can't see sacrificing breastfeeding my child

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Sat, 05-03-2008 - 3:35pm

Aw, thanks! I love my happy little guy. :-)

And I'm glad that you engage in critical thinking regarding study publications. More people need to do that.








Photobucket









iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2006
Sun, 05-04-2008 - 7:24am
That is what I think. I do not like when studies are skewed to fit what is current (majority of mom wWOH) rahter that just the facts.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2006
Sun, 05-04-2008 - 7:25am
Anytime :)
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2006
Sun, 05-04-2008 - 7:29am

The word daycare should not be in the headlines or studies. Children in group settings (or something to that effect) would be more accurate.

"daycare" does not lower the risk. Exposing certain children to viruses (which can be done in a lot of different settings) can lower their risk. There is nothing about daycare itself that will lower the risk.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-04-2008 - 11:17am
Again, the way I understood it, the idea that exposure to viruses may be the cause of the lowered risk is only a hypothesis. All that has been observed as a strong correlation is that kids who spend time in play groups (not sure how that is defined in the studies, and I wonder if they mean preschool) or daycare have a lower rate of leukemia.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2006
Sun, 05-04-2008 - 6:03pm
Again, kids can be exposed to viruses in many different types of group environments. It hads nothing to do with "daycare". They threw daycare in the title to appease the majority. Using the term "group settings" would have been more accurate.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2006
Sun, 05-04-2008 - 6:26pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2005
Tue, 05-06-2008 - 5:39pm

<"Our analysis concluded that children who attended daycare or play groups had about a 30-per-cent lower risk of developing leukemia than those who did not," lead author Patricia Buffler, professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health of the University of California, Berkeley said in a statement.>


Contrary to your headline,