MONDAY, Dec. 3 (HealthDay News) -- Parents who find themselves rushing a child to the nearest emergency room might want to keep a new finding in mind: Only 6 percent of emergency rooms in the United States have all the equipment they should have on hand to treat youngsters.

Many hospitals declined to respond to the survey, however, so the UCLA researchers suspect the true number of centers that don't meet recommendations might be even higher.

Among other deficiencies, hospitals failed to have a variety of devices geared toward infants and newborn babies, according to the survey, which is published in the December issue of Pediatrics.

The survey doesn't address the issue of whether hospitals with less appropriate equipment provide substandard services to kids, noted Dr. Karen Sheehan, medical director of Injury Prevention and Research at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. "But if you don't have equipment small enough for a child, it is not a big leap to think this may affect a child's care."

Surveys were sent in 2003 to 5,144 emergency rooms around the United States, asking about what equipment was geared toward the proper treatment of children. The researchers wanted to know if the hospitals were following 2001 guidelines regarding pediatric care that were released by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Emergency Physicians.

According to the study, only 11 percent of emergency room visits by kids occur in hospitals specifically designed to treat children. The rest end up in regular emergency rooms.

The emergency rooms contacted by the researchers only returned 1,489 surveys, a response rate of 29 percent. Officials at 59 percent of the emergency room departments that responded said they were aware of the 2001 guidelines, but many didn't follow them completely.

Just half of the hospitals surveyed had so-called laryngeal mask airways on hand for children. The masks, equipped with tubes, allow patients to breathe when their airway may be obstructed.

The study authors noted that the survey response rate was low and pointed out that hospitals that did respond tended to deal with higher numbers of pediatric patients. So, the authors wrote, it's possible that emergency rooms as a whole may be doing a worse job of following the guidelines.

The authors add that "much work is left to be done to improve pediatric preparedness of [emergency rooms]."

The American College of Emergency Physicians was quick to respond to the 6 percent statistic, which it called "misleading."

In a statement released Monday, the group cited studies that "show 95 percent of children who come to emergency departments are treated successfully and released. This raises the question of whether the list of equipment is too extensive, since emergency departments use it as a guideline, and the universal good outcomes seem to indicate that physicians are making the necessary adjustments."

Sheehan also noted there are some caveats to the study. "In all fairness, many guidelines come out each year, so it is challenging to keep up with them all," she said.

Also, some hospitals may see comparably few young patients each day, and "it may be hard to devote limited resources to serving relatively few children," she added.

Still, she said, "we need to assure we can provide excellent emergency care for children in whatever type of emergency department they are seen."

Parents have their own role to play when it comes to emergency care, said Dr. James G. Linakis, a pediatric emergency physician at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Providence, R.I. "They should carefully evaluate what kind of emergency services are available to them. The time to do that is before their child needs an emergency department."

The best choice is typically an emergency room that sees the most children, he said. "If there are pediatric emergency medicine specialists on staff, that can be a real plus. If not, they should look for an emergency department staffed by physicians trained in emergency medicine. Often, a brief discussion with the child's primary-care provider will help parents determine which emergency department is most suitable for emergency care of their child."

More information

Learn more about kids and the emergency room from kidshealth.org  .

MONDAY, Dec. 3 (HealthDay News) -- If you want your baby to love fruits and veggies later in life, offer plenty of opportunities to try both as you introduce your infant to solid foods, new research suggests.

And mom, eat plenty of fruits and veggies while you're pregnant and breast-feeding so you'll help to pass on the preference for these healthy foods.

Those are the findings of a new study published in the December issue of Pediatrics.

Repeated exposure to fruits and vegetables in infancy is key, said study senior author Julie Mennella, a biopsychologist and member of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. "They need to taste them to learn to like them."

And that face that babies can make the first time they taste a new food? Don't focus on it, Mennella suggested. "Even though they make these grimaces, when you offered the spoon again, the baby kept on eating," she said of her tiny study participants.

That grimace, she suspects, is innate and not a sign the baby hates the food and won't try it again.

For the study, Mennella and her co-author wanted to focus on how babies develop preferences for foods. They observed 45 infants, ranging in age from 4 months to 8 months, who had all been weaned to cereal but had very little experience eating fruits and vegetables. None had eaten green beans and only one had tried peaches, which were the two foods studied.

The infants were divided into two groups: One group got green beans at home for eight consecutive days, while the other got green beans and then peaches at home over the same eight days. The infants were also observed for acceptance of the foods for two days before the home test and two days afterward, at the Monell center.

The researchers also measured how much the babies ate and asked the mothers about their own eating habits during pregnancy and afterward. Twenty of the 45 new mothers were breast-feeding.

During the initial exposure, the babies ate more calories from peaches than green beans -- about 200 calories compared to just 74. And as they ate, most squinted, furrowed their brow or curled their upper lip.

"When we looked at the first time these babies ate green beans and peaches, the breast-fed babies ate more of the peaches [than the formula-fed infants] and made less negative faces when they ate them," Mennella said.

Then the researchers looked at the diet records of the mothers. "These lactating mothers ate more fruits in general," Mennella said. "The most likely reason why the breast-fed babies ate more peaches is, they were already familiar with the flavor."

No differences in green bean preferences were found between infants who were breast-fed or bottle-fed. When Mennella looked at the diet report, she found both formula-feeding and breast-feeding mothers ate fewer green beans than recommended.

After the eight days of initial testing, all the babies ate more green beans. The green bean consumption rose from about 2 ounces per serving to more than 3 ounces.

Why didn't peach consumption rise? "They ate the peaches after the green beans," she said. "So they were full."

So breast-feeding does boost the chance a baby will like a first taste of food, but only if mother ate similar-tasting foods, Mennella said.

Mennella's advice: "Eat the fruits and vegetables you enjoy while you are pregnant and lactating, because your baby is going to be learning about those foods. Whether you are breast-feeding or formula-feeding, once you start introducing a food, make sure you offer your baby opportunities to eat fruits and vegetables. They need to taste them to learn to like them."

Two dietitians said the study results make sense, and add to other research that has arrived at the same conclusion.

"The more variety a breast-feeding mother has in her diet, the more the infant is likely to accept a wide variety of foods," said Lona Sandon, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association and assistant professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. "The flavor of breast milk may change depending on what the mother is eating. The breast-fed infant is then more accustomed to new flavors than a formula-fed infant. This could enhance their likelihood of trying and accepting new foods or flavors."

Other research has also shown that infants are likely to accept a food after it has been offered several times, Sandon said. "So at first if you don't succeed, try, try again," she advised.

Connie Diekman, president of the American Dietetic Association and director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis, said the study results provide practical information for new parents.

"The fact that the best way to develop a taste for something is through multiple taste tests is something most parents don't know. I'd encourage parents to try small amount of new foods, offer with encouragement, and re-offer for at least a week before deciding if the baby likes it or not," she said.

In another study published in the same issue of Pediatrics, researchers found that allergic peanut reactions are occurring at earlier ages. They compared medical data of children treated for peanut allergies at a Duke University clinic between July 2000 and April 2006 with those of a similar population between 1995 and 1997. During the earlier period, the median ages for the first exposure and reaction were 22 and 24 months, respectively. During the later period it was 14 and 18 months, respectively.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children avoid peanut exposure during the first three years of life, especially if there is a family history of allergy.

More information

To learn more about breast-feeding, visit the La Leche League International  .

FRIDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDay News) -- In the 26 years since scientists first spotted AIDS in America, millions of dollars have been poured into outreach efforts aimed at keeping young people clear of HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

But on the eve of World AIDS Day, a disturbing statistical fact has emerged in this country: The number of newly infected teens and young adults is suddenly on the rise.

And the question is, why?

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2001 to 2005 (the latest years available), the number of new cases of HIV infection diagnosed among 15-to-19-year-olds in the United States rose from 1,010 in 2001, held steady for the next three years, then jumped 20 percent in 2005, to 1,213 cases.

For young people aged 20 to 24, cases of new infection have climbed steadily, from 3,184 in 2001 to 3,876 in 2005.

Newer infection numbers set to be released soon by the CDC may be even higher, the Washington Post reported Saturday. According to the Post, sources close to scientists preparing the new statistics have confirmed that rates of new infection in the United States may be 50 percent higher than previously believed -- a jump from 40,000 new infections per year to up to 60,000. The increase is based on new blood testing methods, the Post said, and whether it signifies a growth in actual cases remains to be seen.

Experts say a number of factors may be at play, including the fact that many HIV-infected patients are now being kept healthy with powerful drugs -- making AIDS seem like less of a threat to young people than it did in the past.

"Certainly the 'scare factor' isn't there anymore," said Rowena Johnston, vice president of research at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) in New York City.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the ravages of AIDS were apparent to most Americans -- either on their TV screens as high-profile celebrities succumbed to the disease, or as individuals lost friends or family members to HIV.

"To see people looking gaunt, skinny and skeletal, and to know that they were going to be dead soon," Johnston said. "It had a sobering effect."

The advent of antiretroviral drugs in the mid-1990s changed all that, however. "These days, for the most part, you can look at a person and not know that they even have AIDS," Johnston said.

That's making HIV seem like less of a threat to young people, said Martha Chono-Helsley. She's executive director of REACH LA, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that helps disadvantaged youth understand and defend against threats like poverty, drug abuse and HIV.

"They're in this age group that feels they are invincible -- that it's never going to happen to them," she said. "Yes, they're getting all these messages from public schools on HIV and AIDS, but they've never actually seen what HIV has done, up close and personal."

Chris Blades, one of REACH LA's young, black "peer educators," said he's seen a kind of nonchalance towards HIV among the gay or bisexual men of color that he counsels.

"On a daily basis, they don't see their friends suffering from it, so it's not a major threat to them," said Blades, 21. "They're in that whole mindset of 'Oh, it can't happen to me, it will never happen to me.'"

But there has been a recent, troubling spike in new infections among gay men, young and old alike. According to the CDC, the rate of new cases of HIV infection linked to male-male sex held steady at around 16,000 cases between 2001-2004, then suddenly jumped to 18,296 in 2005.

Johnston and Chono-Helsley both point to advertisements for HIV-suppressing medicines as one possible contributing factor.

"In gay magazines, you now see [ads with] buff, handsome men climbing mountains, with some kind of quote about how 'I'm not letting HIV get in my way,'" Johnston said. "It sends the message that you, too, can be hot, buff and handsome, even with HIV."

Chono-Helsley agreed. "It's always these bright, healthy vibrant young men in these ads," she said. That could spur young gay men to relax their guard and take more risks, thinking that if they do contract HIV, "I only have to take a pill," she said.

The reality of living with HIV in America is much different, however, even when medication is working. According to Johnston, the side effects of powerful HIV-suppressing drug cocktails include fat redistribution (including unsightly "humps"), insulin resistance, higher cholesterol, increased risks for heart disease, and dangerous liver toxicities.

There's also the fear that, someday, HIV will develop mutations that render these drugs useless, triggering the re-emergence of AIDS, she said.

HIV continues to cut a wide swath through young men and women in the black community, too. According to the CDC, the number of new infections actually dipped slightly for black Americans between 2001 (20,868 cases) and 2005 (18,121 cases). However, black men are still six times more likely than white men to contract HIV, and black women are 20 times more likely to acquire the virus compared to white women.

The answers to that disparity lie mainly in economics, experts say.

"The young men that we work with are predominantly African-American, and HIV is not their No. 1 priority," said Chono-Helsley. "Often survival is their main priority -- where they are going to sleep tonight. They're kicked out of the house; they have substance abuse issues, they're in recovery."

Young black women can easily get caught up in similar problems, or are coerced into unsafe sex by their partners, she added.

Another trend -- soaring rates of methamphetamine use over the past five years -- may also be fueling HIV infection rates for both blacks and young gay men, the experts noted.

Too often, marginalized young people develop "a 'whatever' attitude -- whatever happens, happens," Chono-Helsey said.

Outreach aimed at HIV prevention remains important, of course. But one expert believes too much state and federal money is being funneled away from community outreach programs and toward "HIV Stops With Me" campaigns that focus on individuals already living with the virus.

"The message there is that, if I don't have HIV right now, then all I have got to do is avoid those people who have got it," said Carrie Davis, director of adult services at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Community Center in New York City.

She believes those types of messages allow uninfected people to shift the burden of responsibility from themselves to the HIV-positive, or to people they deem at high risk, such as gay men or drug abusers.

"I think it affects straight people, too, in that they absorb this 'magical thinking' -- that this is someone else's problem," Davis said.

So what doeswork to change attitudes and behaviors? That's a tough question, Chono-Helsley said, and the answer usually depends on particular contexts and communities.

"You really have to evaluate what methods you're using and think about the person as a whole, not just the infection," she said. "Because they've all heard 'use a condom, use a condom.'"

The right approach is key, Blades added. "If you deliver the message to them in a way that's not preachy or looking down on them, I think that's more effective," he said. "That's what we try to do - deliver HIV information in a way that will click in with them, so that they'll take home something that they didn't know the night before."

"One thing is for sure, we can't just shake our finger at young people and say, 'You're bad,'" Chono-Helsley said. "We have to be supportive. They're young, we've all been there, remember. You can save some, but you can't save them all."

More information

There's more on HIV and AIDS at amfAR  .

MONDAY, Nov. 5 (HealthDay News) -- Breast-fed babies are less likely than bottle-fed infants to have certain cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in adulthood, say U.S. researchers who analyzed two generations of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.

"Having been breast-fed in infancy is associated with a lower average body-mass index (BMI) and a higher average HDL (high-density lipoprotein, or "good" cholesterol) level in adulthood, even after accounting for personal and maternal demographic and CVD risk factors that could influence the results," study author Dr. Nisha I. Parikh, a cardiovascular fellow at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in a prepared statement.

Lower BMI and high HDL both protect against CVD, noted the researchers, who found that middle-aged adults who were breast-fed as infants were 55 percent more likely to have high HDL levels than to have low HDL levels, defined as less than 50 mg/dL for women and less than 40 mg/dL for men.

Average HDL levels among adults who'd been breast-fed was 56.6 mg/dL, compared with 53.7 mg/dL for adults who'd been bottle-fed. However, the researchers said this difference was not statistically different once BMI was considered in a later analysis.

Adults who were breast-fed had a lower mean BMI than those who'd been bottle-fed -- 26.1 vs. 26.9. People with a BMI higher than 25 are considered overweight and increased risk for CVD.

"This was a modest reduction in BMI [among those who'd been breast-fed], but even a modest reduction leads to a significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular disease-related death," Parikh said.

Breast-feeding was not associated with any other adult CVD risk factors, the researchers said.

The study was to be presented Monday at the American Heart Association annual meeting in Orlando, Fla.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about heart disease.