i guess ucla's article implies

[shennan]

that us ic'ers are in the lower socioeconomic status scale.

http://ibs.med.ucla.edu/PDFs/ICandIBS.pdf


:lmao:

i noticed a lot of ic'ers were nurses, teachers, and educated ladies.

what's up with this article?

http://ibs.med.ucla.edu/PatientIC.htm
got it from this link--they are companring ic and ibs.

:bonk:
shenna

[ICNDonna]

:rolleyes: Don't you just love it! It's no wonder some people think IC is all in our heads.

GRRRRRRRRR

Donna

[shennan]

:cussing:

yes, it makes me :dizzy:

even some uro's/doc's/ob-gyn's think the same thing.

maybe we could give them this ic for a couple of months, then let them write their articles.

:lmao:

shenna
:bonk:

[Annie2]

I read this article and it states that

"the severity of IBS, IC and CPPS is severely exacerbated by low socioeconomic status, further supporting a connection between stressful circumstances and expression of clinical signs."

So this article is stating that the severity of these diseases is increased by the STRESS of difficult financial circumstances. This, they then state, suggests that stress does, indeed, make our symptoms worse. It is does NOT imply that people with IC or IBS are of a lower socioeconomic class. They are just using difficult financial circumstances as an example of something that is known to be very stressful and are saying stress makes our symptoms worse. This is just a fancy way of saying something we all have learned the hard way...Stress makes us flare big time! Now if they had just asked us, we could have told them that.

Annie :butterfly

[shennan]

yes, you are right. i also went to the footnotes down the bottom. looks like they did some ibs survey down under. i think they bunched the ic with the ibs people. the article is also written with the help from a vet-tony buffington, in 1997. i still don't like the wording. the way the paragraph is written is poor, imo.

it still gives the impression that we bring the ic on to ourselves, imo.
maybe i am being negative... :hmm:

:bonk:

good job, though, annie2.....
:)

shenna

[shennan]

and the ibs'ers bring it on themselves, too.

flush this article down the :toilet:

:)
shenna

[Moby]

I completely agree with annie2. also, I think it is a good article. Most diseases are exacerbated by lower socioeconomic status due to stressful financial circumstances, etc. as well as, in many cases, difficulty in accessing proper medical care. That's just my 2 cents, as one of the 'educated ladies' w. a law degree :) Dianne

[Betsie]

"Additionally, the severity of IBS,11 IC,12 and CPPS III7 is significantly exacerbated by low socioeconomic status, further supporting a connection between stressful circumstances and expression of clinical signs."

I too think that while you may need to read this a few times, it does not imply a socioeconomic connection...rather it identifies that stresses in life seem to have a further complicating factor in the management of these "co-disorders" I think the economic part may imply that many people may not only be under treated, but that the everyday fiscal stresses of managing their lives (with illness) is a contributing factor. I know for me that stress does indeed "inflame" my symptoms.

If you were to look at this from another point of view, perhaps this is a useful article for those applying for disability coverage, as it acknowledges the disease and possibly? it's affect on the labor issues, rather than diminish the disease itself.

If I am gleaning the positive implication from this clinical, it is more about making the connection to other syndromes that many of us seem to deal with and that there somehow seems to be a valid link to IC and the "co-disorders".

I know my point isn't as clear as my thoughts, but do hope it's understood, that it is merely my interpretation. I think this could apply to many misunderstood sydromes/disorders and not just IC. :hmm:

[ICNDonna]

I have to agree that after I read it a second time, the real message becomes clearer. But --- I have to wonder how many people read it a second time --- the content is okay, but it's not very well written.

Donna

[shennan]

i agree.....
i had to reread it many times and i had to go to the exact footnote down the bottom of page.
as i said, i don't like the wording. it was written in 1997. the article could be updated. maybe i'll email ucla. lol...

anyway, thanks, girls, for all of your input. helps to discuss articles.


:)
shenna

[Moby]

Shenna, I think it is GREAT that you posted the article - I wish more people would post articles for discusssion!!! It is really interesting and helpful for us IC'ers to discuss articles, esp. scientific ones, amongst ourselves since we actually LIVE with IC every day! Thanks so much for posting! :) Dianne

[Betsie]

Shenna,

I agree with Diane, this was a very useful post and I think any time you need to try and look at things from someone eles's point of view, it can be a very positive exchange.

Donna makes a good point in that it is not written well. I would add that being a clinical document it is only written from a black and white perspective and I think most of us interpret things in an abstract way. For me the word exacerbate was the key word to think about what was being said.

Also, like almost any material out there, it seemed seriously outdated, 700,000 thousand is an understatement and last night I read an interesting article, which I thought was current, but made a reference to 500,000 afflicted :hmm: ....yeesh, we could use some current data.

Again, great topic! :bow:

[Annie2]

I agree......GREAT POST! And I, too, would love to see discussion of more articles like this.

When we read articles, we all read from our own life perspective. That's why technical writing is so very difficult. You need to be sure, no matter what the readers' perspectives might be, they will all understand exactly what you are saying. That is why technical writing must be so very detailed and makes for pretty "dry" reading.

I am a biologist and educator. So I approach reading such things from a scientific background BUT I look at it as an educator trying to find the key points so that I can explain it to someone else. A social worker will read the same article and zero in on the social implications of what is being said. A mathematician may look at the quantity of the information or imbeded statistics. A very creative person will look at a scientific article and may concentrate on their interpretation of various words that are used. We all have our own very unique gifts, interests and backgrounds. Discussing these things with others shows us other points of view and gives us a much better "total picture" of what is being said. Thank goodness we are all differently gifted so that we can learn so much more from one another!

Many of us spend a great deal of time reading articles and published material about IC. I hope we will all post more of these so we can all benefit from discussing them!

Annie :butterfly

[shennan]

:dizzy:
:)
shenna

[Betsie]

Shenna,

Your "dizzy" response just made me laugh outloud! You just never know when a simple post will lead you to answers and opinions you never dreamed of...LOL!!!

Keep sharing those articles.....

[vm]

shennan - Tony Buffington, who you said helped with that article, wrote up a really good "article" for the ICN. Here is the link:

http://www.ic-network.com/clinicaltrials/buffington1202.html

I chuckled when you said you might just contact UCLA b/c I did that very thing when a paragraph in the news about research he was doing caused a big ruckus here awhile back. His response was to put together this wonderful article that offered a deeper explanation. Check it out when you get the chance.

I also had the good fortune to meet him at an IC Conference a year or so ago after e-mailing with him a bit. He is a great guy and wonderful doc --- too bad he works with animals instead of humans. :)

[donutgirl]

All VERY GOOD information. It certainly helps me to read articles like this and know that there are some pretty smart people out there working for us! Thanks for sharing.

Diane

[shennan]

thanks for the link.

it is interesting....

my current cat has somatitis.... i had ic before i got her.

i had a cat who had bladder problems.... when i lived in los angeles in the late 80's to the mid 90's. she was an insdie/outside cat, though.

maybe my kitty gave me some virus back then. seroius. i have thought about it...

who knows...???

my vet told me to give my cat bovine lactoferrin and coq10. i take them both myself now. i give my cat liquid coq10 and i am trying to think how i can get the bovine (colostrum) powder down her throat without hurting her. baby food didn't work. maybe i will pick up some cat milk from the cat store. she gets a steriod shot every three weeks. we give it to her now. too much stress bringing her to the vet every 20 days.

this more recent article is much better from mr. buffington.

i like dr. theo's research and theories...

funny, i did take some mood meds and anti-depressants before i got ic. two in particular gave me terrible sie effects---tegretol and valproate acid.....

maybe i just had the ic gene and some of these meds activated it. these meds do play with your central nervous system.
oh well...
i guess i just need to relax to keep the flare form being lit too long....

;)
shenna

[shennan]

that's me.... :dizzy: from ic...

shenna

[sacausa]

and the ibs'ers bring it on themselves, too.

flush this article down the :toilet:

:)
shenna

People with IBS cannot control the way that they respond to stress. If you are not a doctor or have not done extensive research, I do not think that you are in a position to make a comment like that.

[Moby]

saca, that is not what shennan was saying. she was saying that she thought that the article implied that people w. ic and ibs make their condition worse but a bunch of us disagreed w. that and then we all agreed that the article merely said that people of certain backgrounds tend to have IC hit harder since they have more stress and less access to proper medical care.

no one was trying to offend - here or in the article! :) Dianne

[vm]

If that is directed to shennan I think maybe you misunderstood the post. She was saying the article implied that - not that she thought that. She was unhappy with the implication, too.

[dyno]

I am glad this was posted. Some of these articles do take several times reading them through and I do agree with what they were trying to say and didn't say it well. Thank-you for all the good input on this one.

[shennan]

yes, that is correct. i did not like the way the article was written for ic'ers and ibs'ers. my sister and her son have ibs. i have ic. her son has had diarrhea since he was a baby. still has it. he is a teenager now.

sometimes we all have to reread things a couple of times. even me.

i am not perfect.

oh well......

shenna
thanks all....

:dizzy:
shenna