RESUMO
Background. Many families find regular checking of children's heads for head louse infestation too onerous and would prefer to be able to prevent infestation by use of a topical application that deters lice from infesting the head. Identification in the laboratory of a repellent activity for piperonal provided the basis for developing a spray product to repel lice. Methods. A proof of principle field study in Dhaka, Bangladesh, compared the effect of using 2% piperonal spray with that of a placebo in 105 children and adults from three communities with infestation levels close to 100%. All participants were treated for infestation and subsequent incidence of reinfestation monitored daily by investigators. A second randomised, controlled, double blind, study in North London, UK, evaluated the effect of the product in normal use. One hundred and sixty-three children from schools with a high level (20-25%) of infestation were treated and confirmed louse free and randomly divided between 2% piperonal, a placebo spray, and a control group for up to 22 weeks. Parents applied the spray and monitored for infestation. Regular investigator visits confirmed the parental monitoring and replenished supplies of spray. Results. In Dhaka, over 18 days there were only 4 infestations in the piperonal group and 8 in the placebo group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.312). In North London, there were 41 cases of infestation over the course of the study. Although there were fewer infestations in the piperonal group, analysis of time to first infestation showed a no significant (p = 0.4368) difference between groups. Conclusion. Routine use of 2% piperonal spray in communities with a high prevalence of head louse infestation may provide some protection from infestation. However, the difference between use of the product and no active intervention was sufficiently small that regular checking for presence of lice is likely to be a more practical and cost effective approach to prevention of infestation.
RESUMO
The following is a description of a case and a discussion by professionals of the ethical issues raised. Niki turned 18 years old just 3 months ago. She is a freshman student at Central State University, where her father is also a faculty member. Niki has been residing in her parents' home. On Monday afternoon, Niki arrives at the college health service asking for a walk-in appointment. An intake evaluation reveals that she is showing signs of anorexia nervosa and is having suicidal ideation. A decision is made to refer Niki for admission to a local psychiatric facility. She agrees to accept a voluntary admission but advises the staff at both the health center and the hospital that she does not want her parents to know where she is. By Monday evening, Niki's family is very anxious regarding her whereabouts and is telephoning everyone they can think of to try to locate her. Although staff members have been urging Niki to allow them to inform her family of her admission to the hospital, she is still refusing to authorize such disclosure. What should the professionals involved in the case do or say if they are contacted by the parents? What are the parameters of confidentiality in cases of children who are living at home but have attained the age of legal majority?