Search

Background: More than 20 million children in the United States lack access to primary health care., Practice Learning: Research shows that students with regular access to physical and mental health services have fewer absences, are more social, less likely to participate in risky behaviors, have improved focus and higher test scores., Implication for School Health Policy, Practice, and Equity: School-based health centers (SBHCs) can be an important, valuable and viable health care delivery option to meet the full-range of primary health care needs of students where they spend the majority of their wake hours, ie, in school. Children in rural and other underserved communities, as well as those underinsured, non-insured, economically challenged, underserved, and the most vulnerable among us are especially at risk., Conclusions: This paper discusses the history, value, and importance of SBHCs from myriad perspectives, including physical and emotional wellbeing, academic and social success, and the promotion of a positive transition to adulthood. In addition, the authors' experiences that resulted in building the first SBHC in the Mid-Hudson Valley Region of New York State are shared. These experiences form the foundation for creating an important roadmap for individuals and school leaders that are interested in bringing a SBHC to their school and district., (© 2024 American School Health Association.)

Recent research and theory suggest that mindfulness, or enhanced attention and awareness in the present moment [Brown and Ryan, 2003], may be linked to lower levels of ego-involvement and, as a result, may have implications for lowering hostility and aggressive behavior. Accordingly, we conducted two studies to examine the potential aggression-mitigating role of mindfulness. In Study 1, we found that dispositional mindfulness correlated negatively with self-reported aggressiveness and hostile attribution bias. In Study 2, participants made mindful before receiving social rejection feedback displayed less-aggressive behavior than did rejected participants not made mindful. Discussion centers on potential mechanisms by which mindfulness operates to reduce aggressive behavior., (Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Purpose: To estimate the maximum-tolerated duration of infusion of gemcitabine at 10 mg/m(2)/min in combination with irinotecan at 40 mg/m(2) daily for 3 days in the treatment of relapsed or refractory acute leukemia or lymphoma., Patients and Methods: Patients with leukemia or lymphoma were escalated in separate strata. Stratum I consisted of 11 patients, median age of 47 years (range, 18 to 68 years), with relapsed or refractory leukemia. Stratum II contained nine patients, median age of 48 years (range, 39 to 68 years), who had refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Patients received irinotecan at 40 mg/m(2) daily for 3 days, beginning just before the first dose of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine was given at 10 mg/m(2)/min, with the total duration adjusted following a modified continuous reassessment model., Results: Severe myelosuppression and stomatitis/esophagitis were the most serious hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. Several patients developed febrile neutropenia, nausea, or vomiting. In both strata, the maximum recommended duration of infusion of gemcitabine was 12 hours delivered at 10 mg/m(2)/min (7,200 mg/m(2)). The overall response rate for one cycle of this therapy in this phase I trial for patients with leukemia was 18% (95% confidence interval, 8% to 45%), and for those with lymphoma, 33% (95% confidence interval, 17% to 66%)., Conclusion: A prolonged infusion of gemcitabine at 10 mg/m(2)/min for 12 hours with 3 days of irinotecan at 40 mg/m(2)/d is a tolerable induction regimen for patients with acute leukemia or lymphoma. Stomatitis/esophagitis should be anticipated; however, this regimen may induce responses in patients with difficult-to-treat hematologic malignancies.

Purpose: To ascertain the maximum tolerated duration of infusion of gemcitabine at 10 mg/m(2)/min in combination with mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m(2) daily for 3 days in the treatment of acute leukemia., Patients and Methods: Thirty-four patients were enrolled. Stratum I consisted of 26 patients, median age 50 years (range, 25 to 71 years), with relapsed or refractory leukemia. Stratum II contained eight patients, median age 62.5 years (range, 38 to 83 years), who had received fewer than three cycles of myelotoxic therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplasia that had evolved into leukemia. Patients received mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m(2) daily for 3 days. After the first mitoxantrone dose, gemcitabine was provided intravenously at 10 mg/m(2)/min with the duration adjusted by following a continuous reassessment model., Results: Severe myelosuppression, and stomatitis or esophagitis were the most common hematologic and nonhematologic dose-limiting toxicities. Several patients developed febrile neutropenia, nausea, or vomiting. In both strata, the maximum recommended duration of infusion of gemcitabine was 12 hours (7,200 mg/m(2)). The mean steady-state concentration of gemcitabine was 24.72 micromol/L and varied over a fivefold range among patients. Overall response rates in this phase I trial for strata I and II were 42% and 63%, respectively., Conclusion: Prolonged-infusion gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate of 10 mg/m(2)/min for 12 hours with 12 mg/m(2)/d mitoxantrone for 3 days is a tolerable induction regimen and achieves plasma concentrations sufficient for maximal intracellular activation. Stomatitis or esophagitis should be anticipated; however, this regimen may induce significant responses in patients with difficult-to-treat leukemias.