Food choice of tactile defensive children.

OBJECTIVE: We explored whether tactile defensive children have picky eating habits because fussy or picky eaters are a general problem to parents and different health professionals. METHODS: Children (n = 62) of both sexes, ages 3 to 10 y, were assigned to an experimental tactile defensive (TD) group (n = 29) or a control non-TD group (n = 33). A questionnaire on eating habits was compiled and given to parents for completion during personal interviews (children were screened with a checklist and evaluated for tactile defensiveness with the Winnie Dunn Caregiver profile questionnaire). RESULTS: This research confirmed that the eating habits and food choices of TD and non-TD children differ significantly. TD children had a fair to poor appetite. They hesitated to eat unfamiliar foods, did not eat other people's houses, and refused certain foods because of the smell and temperature. They also had a problem eating vegetables. They often gagged and/or bit their inner lips and cheeks. The results showed a definite difference in the limited selection of foods that TD children chose and a pronounced aversion toward textures or consistencies, smells, and temperatures of food as compared with integrated children. CONCLUSIONS: Fussy or picky eaters should evaluated more widely than to treat only the feeding problem. Tactile or oral defensiveness can be treated. This report underlines the team approach of health professionals.

Irritation associated with tear-replacement ophthalmic drops. A pharmaceutical and subjective investigation.

Artificial tears, commonly prescribed for correction of the dry-eye syndrome, are formulated with suitably preserved aqueous polymeric solutions to promote corneal wetting without causing such side-effects as burning, itching, blurred vision and scratchiness. Four of the most commonly used commercial tear-replacement solutions were investigated after complaints of irritation by some users. The solutions were tested for tonicity, viscosity and pH and found to be in the tolerable range (tonicity equivalent to 0.5-1.5% m/v sodium chloride, viscosity 1-15 centipoise and pH 4-9). A double-blind cross-over study was conducted on 16 subjects and the degree of discomfort (non-irritant, irritant, and highly irritant) was determined subjectively. Results indicated that 3 of the tear solutions were acceptable. However, over 50% of the subjects reported irritation from the solution comprising polyvinyl alcohol 1.4% m/v preserved with 0.5% m/v chlorobutanol. To identify the cause of irritation, two extemporaneously prepared controls containing polyvinyl alcohol 1.4% m/v, with and without chlorobutanol 0.5% m/v as preservative, were also included in the study. The irritant response was found to be caused by the presence of chlorobutanol in the formulation. An attempt is made to identify and explain formulation properties likely to elicit adverse responses.